Identification by confrontation

[Chris]

Trevor Marriott is clearly wrong to argue, as he is doing on jtrforums.com, that an identification parade would invariably have been used, and that therefore the marginalia must be incorrect in mentioning an attempted identification by confrontation.

In fact confrontation and even dock identifications continued to be used at least as late as the 1950s in cases where a parade was not possible. For example, a parade could obviously not be used if the suspect refused to cooperate.

[Monty]

There is no argument Chris,

More a grasping at straws.

There is either an ignorance of Police procedure during that period or an outright refusal to acknowledge one may be incorrect.

Which do you think it is?

Monty

[Chris]

Which do you think it is?

I'm baffled - particularly as Trevor Marriott has now posted that "I had cause to use several of these direct confrontations in the 70`s ..."

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=202846&postcount=256

If he used confrontations himself in the 1970s, how on earth can he claim that a confrontation could not have been used in the 1880s?

[Bridewell]

Confrontation ID

In fact confrontation and even dock identifications continued to be used at least as late as the 1950s in cases where a parade was not possible. For example, a parade could obviously not be used if the suspect refused to cooperate.

Confrontation identifications can still be used even now under certain very restricted circumstances.

The following is the present-day requirement for the conducting of a confrontation ID:

3.23 The identification officer may arrange for the suspect to be confronted by the witness if none of the options referred to in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.10 or 3.21 are practicable.
A “confrontation” is when the suspect is directly confronted by the witness. A confrontation does not require the suspect’s consent. Confrontations must be carried out in accordance with Annex D.

(3.5 to 3.10 refer to Video ID, ID Parades and Group ID). 3.21 relates to video ID of an unavailable suspect).

Full details PACE 1984 Codes of Practice:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117587/pace-code-d-2011.pdf

A confrontation ID is (and I suspect always was) permissible if the suspect refuses to co-operate with ID Parade procedures. It's not desirable, because the witness is confronted with one suspect and one suspect only, so the evidential value is greatly reduced, but that doesn't mean that it isn't, or wasn't permitted.

Obviously a witness cannot be primed before any ID Procedure, so no officer involved in the investigation of the offence is allowed to be present. That's certainly the case in the modern era and I would be surprised if it wasn't so in the 19th century. If that holds good then Swanson certainly, and Anderson probably, could not have been eye witnesses to any Seaside Home ID if the expectation was that it would be used in any trial process.

That's my understanding.

[Monty]

That's how it looks in my pretty pink copy of PACE section D Colin,

I think Trev is fully aware however it goes against his drive to strike Kos off the suspect list.

Monty

[Bridewell]

That's how it looks in my pretty pink copy of PACE section D Colin,

I think Trev is fully aware however it goes against his drive to strike Kos off the suspect list.

Monty

I don't see how the surname Kosminsky can ever be struck off the suspect list when both MacNaghten and Anderson mention it.

[Phil H]

I think Trev is fully aware however it goes against his drive to strike Kos off the suspect list.

That is the nub of this issue. It follows his prolonged attempt on these boards, to discredit the Swanson marginalia as a whole, if you recall.

His claims will have no substance, they rarely do. It is a shame because it undermines his often good work, and he is a capable writer.

Phil

[DVV]

It is a shame because it undermines his often good work, and he is a capable writer.

Phil

Hi Phil.

Agreed.
And when it comes to copy and paste the inquests, he's a Master.

Cheers

[Simon Wood]

RIP Kosminski

Hi All,

Just as a point of order, Anderson never mentioned the name Kosminski.

And, according to Charles Sandell's transcription of the pencilled TLSOMOL endpaper notation for his 1981 News of the World article [see Rip 128], neither did Swanson.

It sure is a puzzler.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Just as a point of order, Anderson never mentioned the name Kosminski.

And, according to Charles Sandell's transcription of the pencilled TLSOMOL endpaper notation for his 1981 News of the World article [see Rip 128], neither did Swanson.

On the contrary, Sandell wrote:
"The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on the blank page of the book named the man.
He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Swanson didn't write "he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

Or if he did, he must have written it in invisible pencil.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Swanson didn't write "he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

Obviously Sandell was not entirely accurate in what he wrote. Nevertheless, he did write that Swanson named the suspect. Sandell's article would certainly not be consistent with the theory suggested previously that the final sentence might have been added after 1981 (nor would Jim Swanson's correspondence with the News of the World discussed elsewhere).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

In the absence of the all-important "Kosminski was the suspect", Sandell can only have been told that D.S.S. said "he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski," for there is nothing else in the pencilled marginalia to substantiate such a claim.

All I am trying to fathom is why, presented with possibly the revelation of the century, a newspaper reporter would omit the all-important handwritten evidence of an LVP policeman which positively identified a Jack the Ripper "suspect".

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Sandell wrote:
"The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on the blank page of the book named the man. He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

Mr. Sandell read what Anderson wrote in his book, and what Swanson pencilled in. He then described this in a readable, condensed two sentence statement.

That's what newsmen do. They write with the reader in mind. To make things clear and easy to grasp. Yes he was entirely accurate in how he described it.

Unless, Simon you are aguing that instead, Sandell should have written this so that his readers are supposed to not know this was pencilled into Anderson's book, and therefore nothing in the book has any relevance.

Is that what you are arguing, Simon? Or are you saying that because he did not exactly quote the words Swanson used that there's something wrong with that? When in fact what he wrote is perfectly ok. Or feel free to answer any way you like, Simon. Because I don't get your argument.

I understand what Sandell wrote, I don't understand your problem with it.

Roy

[Chris]

All I am trying to fathom is why, presented with possibly the revelation of the century, a newspaper reporter would omit the all-important handwritten evidence of an LVP policeman which positively identified a Jack the Ripper "suspect".

Given that he'd already said that the suspect was named in the annotations, and that his name was Kosminski, presumably he thought that quoting "Kosminski was the suspect" would be repetitious. It's not as though the parts he did quote were accurately transcribed.