Plausibility of Kosminski

[Trevor Marriott]

ID

I have never heard of the police suddenly turning up on the door step of a suspect or anywhere else where a supect may be for that matter, and either forcibly removing him, asking him to voluntarily accompany them or any other reason for the purpose of that person taking part in "any" form of an ID proceedure.

The practice is and and i am sure would have been in 1888 whereby when you have a suspect you interview him either on a voluntary basis or under arrest first and see what he has to say with regards to the allegations then if he denies the allegations you consider an ID procedure. In any event a direct confrontation would be as a last resort.

This is totally unsafe as the mind of the witness is partially made up by the fact that the witness is being presented a suspect and therefore the witness in his own mind may automatically assume the man before him must be the guilty man simply because he is locked in a cell or stood between two policemen in handcuffs

[Fleetwood Mac]

No. This is your interpretation of what was meant by 'positive ID'. It is not mine in this particular scenario, and I suggest it was neither Swanson's nor Anderson's, else they liars be. My interpretation allows for more than black and white which surely is the normal state of all things.

Mike

It certainly is my interpretation of 'positive ID'.

But then, ask 100 people off the street what is meant by 'positive ID': "looks like him but can't be certain" or "yes, that's the man".

What answer would you receive?

I suppose I'm going with the consensus on what a positive ID means. And, in the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise I think it's right to do so.

As said, there is Swanson's statement to support this: "the suspect would have hanged". It is almost inconceivable that Swanson would have made this statement on the basis of: "looks like him, but can't be certain", knowing full well that wouldn't have been enough for him to hang. Are you saying a trained policeman with years of service would conclude something that was clearly not possible?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood,
In your post 985,you may have jumped the gun a little.I was not refering to BS as the killer,but the person generally called Pipeman.

Harry, still not convinced Schwartz would have had a better view.

[The Good Michael]

It certainly is my interpretation of 'positive ID'.

But then, ask 100 people off the street what is meant by 'positive ID': "looks like him but can't be certain" or "yes, that's the man".

What answer would you receive?

I suppose I'm going with the consensus on what a positive ID means. And, in the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise I think it's right to do so.

As said, there is Swanson's statement to support this: "the suspect would have hanged". It is almost inconceivable that Swanson would have made this statement on the basis of: "looks like him, but can't be certain", knowing full well that wouldn't have been enough for him to hang. Are you saying a trained policeman with years of service would conclude something that was clearly not possible?

I feel like Chris must have felt... what I am saying is that a positive ID of any sort without a signed statement, wouldn't have gotten anyone hanged, and that it's possible Anderson and Swanson were sure that the witness knew that this man was the suspect even though nothing like "He's the man! I swear on my mother;s grave" was ever spoken, and that to them, this non-verbal or less than certain articulation was a positive ID in their minds. I don't know how to be any clearer. You are looking at all things as black or white when they absolutely cannot be for any of this to make sense. I am arguing for leeway instead of calling men liars or conspirators.

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

I feel like Chris must have felt...

It's a tough, old world Mike. Try to stay positive through this trauma!

what I am saying is that a positive ID of any sort without a signed statement, wouldn't have gotten anyone hanged

I know you're saying that, Mike.

And I'm saying that the signed statement was the problem, and it's why Swanson said something like: "the witness refused to testify as the man would have hanged".

Swanson is giving you cause and effect:

Effect: the man was not convicted.
Cause: the witness refused to testify.

Now, you may call this 'black and white'.

I call it reasonable.

Nowhere in Swansons' statement does he say: "the witness thought it was the man but couldn't be sure, and as such we had no grounds for a conviction".

In the above scenario:

Effect: the man was not convicted.
Cause: the witness could not be sure.

I am simply stating what is there, Mike. You are suggesting a cause and effect not mentioned in Swanson's statement.

Applying simple logic:

1) Swanson claimed the man would have been hanged.
2) Swanson claimed the witness refused to testify and therefore was not hanged.
3) Therefore, Swanson's 'positive ID' must have been enough for Swanson to think that the man would have been hanged.
4) Therefore, could it have been: "I think that's him but I can't be certain". No.
5) Could it have been: "that's the man". Yes.
6) In the event modern analysis claims the: "that's the man" statement still wouldn't have convicted him, could Swanson have thought it would convict him? Yes.
7) In any possible scenario, could Swanson have thought: "that looks like him, but can't be certain" would have led to a conviction as per his statement? No.

[PaulB]

I would put the argument this way.

Macnaghten, a hihgly regarded police administrator, was there too, and he implicitly denies that 'Kosminsk'i was much of a suspect -- let alone that there was a positive witness identification.

No, he was not there for the 1888 murders, but he was there for the opening of the Seaside Home, and he was there for Aaron Kosminski's sectioning, and he was there for Lawende's no when 'confronted' with Sadler.

Um, no he doesn't implicitly deny that Kosminski was much of a suspect, he explicitly states the opposite: "There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'." (my emphasis).

[The Good Michael]

"Had we gotten him to sign a statement, the man would have been hanged."

What comes before is irrelevant. In the minds of Swanson and Anderson there was a positive ID (unless they are lying)), and the next step is a signature. Positive ID is perception and you cannot know what was in the minds of the two men as to what a positive ID meant. You only can opine. Your opinion makes them into liars because they never would have released a man who verbally committed to a suspect. That, as Stewart has said (sort of) would be ridiculous. A positive ID that was only wishful thinking clears the two men of lying. That's where I am and I have understood everything you've said, but I am fairly sure you are wrong for the reason I just mentioned. You are sure I am wrong because 'positive ID' in your mind, must mean exactly the same thing to Swanson and Anderson as to you. That is where you are being black and white. It's like saying the raising of taxes is a bad thing, when it clearly always isn't the case.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Um, no he doesn't implicitly deny that Kosminski was much of a suspect, he explicitly states the opposite: "There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'." (my emphasis).

You beat me to that. Had I not been working on a year-long lesson plan, I would have been there first. Drat!

Mike

[lynn cates]

body english

Hello All. Although this has been observed in another place, I have not seen it mentioned recently. So here goes.

Is it not at least possible that both "the witness' identification" and the "knew he was identified" are a reading of body english by Anderson/Swanson or a reading of the body english as subsequently reported by constables or sergeants?

Sometimes we make a great deal of such things and, in particular, eye contact.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

This is what I have been saying for a few days now, that non-verbal communication can be a positive ID and especially to people who might think they know the psychology of witnesses and suspects. This could never lead toa conviction unless a witness was somehow forced to write a statement, but it might be good enough in thr form of a memoir, to constitute positive identification in the writer's mind.

Mike

[lynn cates]

ah!

Hello Michael. Thanks. Makes sense to me.

Thought this was discussed long ago on a different thread?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Positive ID is perception and you cannot know what was in the minds of the two men as to what a positive ID meant. You only can opine.

Which is what we're all doing, Mike. We're building a case based on a source document. So, no news there.

The crux of it boils down to this:

1) What is the probability of Swanson stating he would have hanged based on a: "looks like him, can't be sure"? Slim.

2) What is the probability of Swanson stating he would have hanged based on a: "yes, that's the man"? Greater than your contention.

You see, Mike, it's not black and white on my part, so we're better off focusing on which is more likely: 1 or 2?

It seems to me that there's an argument being put forth that 2 is impossible because modern analysis suggests Swanson couldn't have come to that conclusion. But, as you quite rightly say, we're back to what was in Swanson's mind, not what modern analysis claims.

Ultimately, for Swanson to say he would have hanged, which he did, then we have to establish what was the probable cause of Swanson's statement. Was it: "that's the man" or "looks like him, but can't be sure"? I'll go with "that's the man".

A positive ID that was only wishful thinking clears the two men of lying.

I am not saying they're lying.

But, you are saying, indirectly, that Swanson claimed this man would hang on the back off a: "looks like him, but can't be certain". I'm saying it is unlikely Swanson would have reached that conclusion based on your interpretation of the witness/suspect encounter.

Now, I have a feeling you're going to pull Chris's card out the bag along the lines of "you're putting words out of my mouth", which is where Chris and I arrived at this point. So, in the interests of preemption:

1) Swanson stated the man would hang based on him being identified (agreed?).

2) You are stating that the identification was likely to have been: "looks like him, can't be certain" (agreed?).

3) Therefore, deduction tells us that you're suggesting this as the most likely scenario: Swanson believed that the man would hang when the suspect said: "looks like him, but can't be certain" (agreed?).

I would disagree. In my view, Swanson's mind would not have led him to believe the man would hang based on a "looks like him, but can't be certain".

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello All. Although this has been observed in another place, I have not seen it mentioned recently. So here goes.

Is it not at least possible that both "the witness' identification" and the "knew he was identified" are a reading of body english by Anderson/Swanson or a reading of the body english as subsequently reported by constables or sergeants?

Sometimes we make a great deal of such things and, in particular, eye contact.

Cheers.
LC

It's possible Lynn, of course it is. Many things are possible.

I suppose we're trying to get to the most likely scenario.

Swanson said: "the man was identified, but the witness refused to give evidence as the man would have been hanged" or something to that effect.

The question that follows is which is more likely:

1) Swanson believed he would have been convicted on the basis of body language/eye contact etc?

2) Swanson believed he would have been convicted on the basis of a: "yes, that's the man".

[Trevor Marriott]

Small point. He was "sent", not taken. It adds a different complexion.

So did the police give him a return ticket on the bus to cover his out of pocket expenses ?

[Garry Wroe]

The practice is and and i am sure would have been in 1888 whereby when you have a suspect you interview him either on a voluntary basis or under arrest first and see what he has to say with regards to the allegations then if he denies the allegations you consider an ID procedure. In any event a direct confrontation would be as a last resort.

That is certainly my understanding of the modern identificational procedure, Trevor. If, as you imply, a similar approach was current in the early 1890s, Kosminski would have been either residing at his brother’s house, ‘caged in an asylum’ or undergoing treatment at the Mile End Infirmary when the preliminaries to the Seaside Home identification were actioned. In either case, I cannot understand the logic of conveying Kosminski to Brighton in order that he might be viewed by Anderson’s witness, particularly since, according to Swanson, this was an arrangement that incurred some ‘difficulty’. From a purely practical standpoint, it makes no sense.

So we’re back to square one.

There was obviously a reason why the Seaside Home was chosen for the prospective Kosminski identification – a very good reason at that, given the time, trouble and expense that would have been invested in the exercise. Hence I wondered whether the Seaside Home might have been used to accommodate sequestered witnesses in high-profile investigations. Whatever the real reason, it is only with the clarification of such matters that we can hope to understand what happened and why.

But I’m not holding my breath.