PC Edward Watkins

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks George. Or we could say that the City PC reported on the man's appearance, but the PC wasn't present at the identification proceeding (with the Jewish witness).

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Scott,

One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who, having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined to an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police-constable in Mitre Court.

'Further confusion added to the plot I reckon.

'Glimpse'? This is not the same as 'good view'. How much store can we place in an eye witness sighting after the event, possibly with a decent period of time passing, based upon a glimpse. You'd have to ask also, what is the original source of the statement: somebody is losing ground here when a 'good view' becomes 'a glimpse'.

'Resemble the murderer'? This is not the same as 'unhesitatingly identified'. Again, what is the original source of the statement?

Was 'a glimpse' and a 'resemblance' turned into a 'good view' and 'unhesitatingly identified'?

Either way, eye-witness sightings are known to be unreliable to a significant extent and as such should be treated with caution, and so whatever the nature of the ID it certainly does not mean 'that the suspect' was correctly identified.

[Scott Nelson]

"good view (of the murderer)" - Anderson's description of identification confrontation

"strongly resembled" - Macnaghten describing PC encounter

"glimpse" - Griffiths modifying either Anderson's or Macnaghten's PC sighting

"unhesitatingly identified" - Anderson's other description of suspect-witness confrontation, different from PC sighting.

[Fleetwood Mac]

"good view (of the murderer)" - Anderson's description of identification confrontation

"strongly resembled" - Macnaghten describing PC encounter

"glimpse" - Griffiths modifying either Anderson's or Macnaghten's PC sighting

"unhesitatingly identified" - Anderson's other description of suspect-witness confrontation, different from PC sighting.

Either way, eye witness sightings are known to demand caution.

How long after the event was this identification?

[Scott Nelson]

Nobody knows. Macnaghten may have heard something about it as he mentions the suspect going (returning?) to an asylum about March 1889.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Nobody knows. Macnaghten may have heard something about it as he mentions the suspect going (returning?) to an asylum about March 1889.

I reckon that authoritative commentators wouldn't fancy the chances of a reliable identification, Scott, given the length of time that passed and the noted weakness of eye-witness accounts.

'Unhesitatingly identified' seems wildly optimistic given everything that we know today.

[Scott Nelson]

'Unhesitatingly identified' seems wildly optimistic given everything that we know today.

I've always thought it may have had something to do with a relative who agreed to identify the suspect, but then backed away from giving further evidence. The family had him certified insane anyway -- whether before or after, I don't know.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I've always thought it may have had something to do with a relative who agreed to identify the suspect, but then backed away from giving further evidence. The family had him certified insane anyway -- whether before or after, I don't know.

Family doesn't add up to me.

Assuming Anderson was correct in his 'unhesitatingly identified' assertion:

1) It is highly unlikely that someone who didn't know 'the suspect' could unhesitatingly identify him months after the event. The experience of modern day witness testimony tells us that.

2) Assuming this was a family member, there would have been no need for an identity set-up. The whole point of an ID is to pick out someone to prove the point. A family member having witnessed another family member in the vicinity of a murder would know fine well that said family member was there, no need for an ID.

3) Assuming Anderson relayed it as it was, the only plausible answer is that it was someone who knew 'the suspect' but not a family member, and the polis wanted that extra bit of clarification.

Having said that, the most plausible answer is that 'the witness' didn't 'unhesitatingly identify' 'the suspect' at all, and Anderson embellished his account for reasons we can only guess.

[Scott Nelson]

Not quite sure about point 1. The rest, yes its possible.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I've always thought it may have had something to do with a relative who agreed to identify the suspect, but then backed away from giving further evidence. The family had him certified insane anyway -- whether before or after, I don't know.

If Anderson's witness was a relative of the suspect, who refused to testify against the suspect when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, can you explain why he needed to be reminded that the suspect was Jewish when he already knew so?

Can you also explain why he would have been prepared to cooperate with the police, when the suspect's relatives knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice and would not give up one of their number to Gentile justice?

Can you also explain why Anderson would have described the witness as

the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer

if the witness was someone who had been with Joseph Lawende, who evidently had had a good view of the murderer because otherwise he would not have been able to provide the police with a detailed description of him?

If Levy told the police that he had recognised the man he saw as a relative of his, who also lived in London, then why would he have been required to identify him at an identification procedure on the English coast?

In an identification parade, for example, the witness could hardly be asked to pick out a relative of his when all the other 'suspects' are not relatives of his.

The whole purpose of an identification parade is to identify someone whose identity is unknown to the witness, even though it is known to the police.