Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

But all of those are highy questionable and The MM has proved to be inacurate. That makes a big difference. Tips the scales I would say but hey who I am I to say after all you yourself along side Martin and other members of the cartel are regarded a demi gods by some all I can say is that I hope I dont go to heaven

Gods, Trevor. Gods. Martin and Stewart are Gods of Ripperology, not mere demi-gods.

And what cartel? There is no cartel. You have been told this.

[Abby Normal]

Just an honest question. What exactly is meant by saying that the witness identification would be worthless in a legal sense. Stewart has said this a few times, and it is now being repeated like the gospel word by various people. But I honestly do not understand what you mean by this Stewart.

I do not disagree that it is highly unlikely that the witness would be able to positively ID Kozminski after say almost 2 years after the Mitre Square murder. And Lawende (who I also presume was probably the witness) said he doubted he could ID the man.

However, as you yourself stated (I think)... sometimes witnesses have stated that they could not recognize a person again, and then at the ID they actually are quite certain of the identification. Also, you said that a lawyer would make mincemeat of such an identification (I am paraphrasing).

This does not quite get to the point. If the witness had positively IDed the suspect, and been positive about it, then his identification would not be legally worthless. Yes, the defense lawyer would argue that a lot of time had passed, the witness did not get a good look, it was dark, etc. But still... that does not render the witness's testimony legally worthless. It is legally what it is. If the witness was indeed convinced, and stated emphatically that he was convinced, then this would carry a certain amount of authority.

Unless you are referring to some actual law that disqualifies the evidence of eyewitnesses after a certain amount of time has passed.

I am not saying here anything about the accuracy of witness identifications, which as we all know, are notoriously inaccurate generally, especially after time has passed.

Rob H

Hi Rob
Bought and read your book. I thoroughly enjoyed it-excellent work.

What, in your view, is the most likely sequence of the following events and approx dates:

Threatens sister with knife
first admittance to the workhouse
police are first notified of AK (and by whom? family or doctors)
ID at seaside home
surveilance of AK
second stint at workhouse/asylum

[Stewart P Evans]

Identification

Just an honest question. What exactly is meant by saying that the witness identification would be worthless in a legal sense. Stewart has said this a few times, and it is now being repeated like the gospel word by various people. But I honestly do not understand what you mean by this Stewart.
...
Rob H

Have you not followed this argument in the past? It has been stated more than once.

Putting aside any question of insanity, the 1888 sightings, even at best, cannot be described as good. Not least of all because they were brief, it was dark with less than good lighting and the elapse of time, around two years, between sighting and identification too great. Then it boils down to the word of the witness against that of the defendant, with no supporting evidence either way, (without a confession that is).

Any defence lawyer would destroy such evidence in very short order. So such an identification would be legally valueless, especially given the unreliability of evidence of identification anyway.

I didn't say that it was illegal.

[Stewart P Evans]

Demi gods

Gods, Trevor. Gods. Martin and Stewart are Gods of Ripperology, not mere demi-gods.
And what cartel? There is no cartel. You have been told this.

Most Ripper students of my acquaintance are for too firmly grounded to regard me as anything but a fellow enthusiast, and they soon tell me if they don't agree with what I say. Idolising someone over a subject like this sounds a bit unhealthy to me. That's why it's a nonsense to speak of 'experts' and 'demi gods'. I'm sure that Paul and Martin (and others) don't mind being referred to as Ripper authorities, because they are.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

The only God that visits me in any way is a relation of Bacchus, the God of wine.. probably his cousin... Backhurts, the God of pain... who gave me a shoulder to cry for..not on.

Oh, then there is The Special One of course... but he's gone and started playing Y Viva Espana on his harp.


kindly

Phil

.

[Steven Russell]

Rob,
If a witness is shown a suspect and asked, "Is that the man you saw?", the witness can only answer yes, no, or anywhere on a sliding scale of maybe. Any of these answers would not prove difficult for a good barrister to introduce an element of doubt - along the lines you have indicated.

But if the witness is shown a line-up of several broadly similar looking men, and picks out the suspect without any prompting, that is much stronger evidence. That was all I meant when I said that a one-to-one type ID would be worthless legally. Whether or not it would be enough to convince the police officers involved is a different matter.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Stewart P Evans]

Positive

...
This does not quite get to the point. If the witness had positively IDed the suspect, and been positive about it, then his identification would not be legally worthless. Yes, the defense lawyer would argue that a lot of time had passed, the witness did not get a good look, it was dark, etc. But still... that does not render the witness's testimony legally worthless. It is legally what it is. If the witness was indeed convinced, and stated emphatically that he was convinced, then this would carry a certain amount of authority.
...
Rob H

The witnesses could be as positive as he liked. That wouldn't alter the facts that militate against such evidence. Mistaken witnesses are often very positive, hence you get some of the miscarriages of justice you have seen in the past based on such evidence.

[Stewart P Evans]

Good Point

Rob,
If a witness is shown a suspect and asked, "Is that the man you saw?", the witness can only answer yes, no, or anywhere on a sliding scale of maybe. Any of these answers would not prove difficult for a good barrister to introduce an element of doubt - along the lines you have indicated.
But if the witness is shown a line-up of several broadly similar looking men, and picks out the suspect without any prompting, that is much stronger evidence. That was all I meant when I said that a one-to-one type ID would be worthless legally. Whether or not it would be enough to convince the police officers involved is a different matter.
Best wishes,
Steve.

That's a good point Steve, for it seems most likely that the identification described by Anderson was not a formal ID parade, but a confrontation which, as you say, carries much less legal weight.

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson...

Rob, I think it all hinges on when the ID took place, before incarceration, or afterwards. Logically, for the scenario to take place as described, the suspect-witness confrontation had to occur before the suspect was certified insane. It's the only way he could have "hung."
But, of course, I believe in multiple identification attempts -- both before and after incarceration. Three, four...six...ten. The police just wouldn't give up, so they also used more than one witness.

Anderson: Doing anything special today Swanson?

Swanson: No sir.

Anderson: Just round up a few more witnesses then, make sure they're Jewish, and we'll have some more identifications.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's a good point Steve, for it seems most likely that the identification described by Anderson was not a formal ID parade, but a confrontation which, as you say, carries much less legal weight.

Even today identification on its own would not be enough to charge someone let alone convict them unless of course corroborated.

Direct confornations in this day and age are virtually a thing of the past. and were only used in the past when a suspect would not agree to take part in a parade.

What bugs me about this Kosminski ID is what power did they have to take him. They surely must have told both him and his family the reasons why they wanted him to accompany them. If that be the case why didnt they just arrest him on suspicion of murder. They obvioulsly didnt do that. But even if he agreed to accompany them and the Id was made why didnt they arrest him then. He wasnt insanse then because they took him back to a relatives home.

Someone mentioned Anderson getting confused with the Sadler ID Was sadler ever known to stay in a seamans home or mission if the answser to that is yes then there is the missing piece of the puzzle. Anderson got his knickers in a twist

[Steven Russell]

What about my earlier suggestion that police were convinced by the identification but knew it would never stand up in court? Therefore they were content to let the suspect remain in the asylum and close the case. I have heard policemen say, when asked how they would proceed when they knew a killer was guilty but couldn't prove it legally, "We'd get him under the mental health act".

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Have you not followed this argument in the past? It has been stated more than once.

Putting aside any question of insanity, the 1888 sightings, even at best, cannot be described as good. Not least of all because they were brief, it was dark with less than good lighting and the elapse of time, around two years, between sighting and identification too great. Then it boils down to the word of the witness against that of the defendant, with no supporting evidence either way, (without a confession that is).

Any defence lawyer would destroy such evidence in very short order. So such an identification would be legally valueless, especially given the unreliability of evidence of identification anyway.

I didn't say that it was illegal.

Would they 'destroy it easily'?

Were I the prosecution I'd argue:

"The witness naturally was cautious, that's a reasonable standpoint for any human being. Also, at no point did he say he wouldn't recognise him again. On balance, he had doubts. Just as you or I have doubts about realising our aspirations - doesn't mean we won't get there. A sensible man has doubts; there is always room for alternative events. So, now that we've shown that we all have doubts, and sometimes they turn out to be misplaced, we can now turn to the witness sighting. The witness saw this man's height, clothes and colouring from 9/10 feet away; while photographic evidence would have proven useful it turns out that when faced with the suspect he recognised him instantly. What matters here is not the 'doubt', rather these two simple propostions from our witness: he saw a man on the night; the man he saw sits over there. The witness is adamant in this".

Now, it may not work, Stewart, but are we seriously saying that the man who gave everyone the run around, the most notorious man around, wouldn't have been placed in a court of law (with a witness sighting and no alibi for each of the nights, plus a few other bits and pieces such as the man's character)?

On the insanity issue: there is ample evidence of people being taken into asylums and released, say 6/8 weeks later. Clearly, these people weren't that 'mad'. Perhaps this man was detained because the police fancied him for it, and they had something that led to detention without him being evidently a lunatic.

And, were it so unbelievable that this man could have been placed in front of a court of law during Victorian times, then why did Anderson risk his reputation with his statement and why is there no contemporary record of anyone laughing Anderson out of court (or is there)? Imagine a high ranking police officer today saying something that was clearly ridiculous - the press would have had a field day - prior to his resignation.

[Steven Russell]

That speech is pretty good. Especially if you read it in a William Shatner voice. But if the defence had James Mason, you'd be stuffed.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That speech is pretty good. Especially if you read it in a William Shatner voice. But if the defence had James Mason, you'd be stuffed.

Best wishes,
Steve.

I've modelled myself on Kavangah QC. Who wouldn't believe John Thaw? Sincerity personified.

[Steven Russell]

Good choice. John Thaw v. James Mason would be epic!
S.