Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A possibility for the Seaside Home?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    There is a big difference between bending the rules and totally breaking them in law enforcement. Bending the rules might not jeopardize a prosecution, breaking them would.

    Let me again show the guidelines for Id parades as set out in the Victorian police codes of practice

    1. It is of the utmost importance that the identification of a person who may be charged with a criminal offence should be conducted in the fairest possible manner.
    If a direct confrontation had taken place would that be described as fair- no it wouldnt

    2. With this end in view the following procedure should be observed :
    (a) The officer in charge of the case against the prisoner, although present, should take no part in the particular proceedings connected with the identification, which should be carried out by the officer on duty in charge of the station or court.
    So at least one other officer would be needed to take charge of the parade usullay an Inspector
    (b) The witnesses should not be allowed to see the accused before he is placed with others for the purpose of identification, nor should they be shown photographs of him or verbal or written descriptions.
    (c) The accused should be placed among a number of persons (not police)—eight or more, of similar age, height, general appearance, and class of life. He should be invited to stand where he pleases among them, and to change his position after each witness has been called in. He should be asked if he has any objection to any of the persons present, or the arrangements made, and, if he wishes, his solicitor or a friend actually in attendance may be allowed to be present.
    No evidence from anyone else confirming this took place
    (d) The witnesses should be brought in one by one, and be directed to touch the person they identify. On leaving they should not be allowed to communicate with any other witness in waiting.
    (e) Every circumstance attending the identification should be carefully noted by the officer carrying it out, and whether the accused be identified or not, care being taken that when a witness fails to identify the fact should be as carefully recorded with name and address as in the contrary case—the object being that no subsequent allegation of unfairness can lie.
    A written record of the events that took place at the parade should have been made and filed, nothing on file anywhere
    (f) Any statement made by the person suspected must be recorded at once and read over to the officer in charge of the case in the presence of the prisoner, who should be invited to sign it.
    Again nothing in writing to show any comments if any were made by the suspect after being identified
    Each case has to be judged on its merits both from a police perspective, and from those who now research historical cases such as this. You cannot say that because the police were corrupt, or broke the rules in one case it automatically applies to another. In this case using that as a yardstick just shows the desperation in wanting to believe this Id parade happened in the way described, and thus supporting Aaron Kosminki as a suspect.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Thank you for that information.

    The point, though, is that the Swanson marginalia describes an unorthodox event, an event that manifestly did not comply with the codes of conduct, and to which those codes of conduct didn't apply.

    Secondly, in the case of 'Kosminski' there is no reason to believe that there was a formal ID parade. All we know is that there was an informal confrontation between the witness and suspect. The rules and regulations for a formal ID therefore wouldn't apply.

    You are trying to force rules and regulations on an event to which they didn't apply, then falsely concluding that the event never happened because it doesn't comply with those rules and regulations.





    Comment


    • Apqrt from the Kosminski note being discussed, did Swanson make any other annotations in his copy of Anderson's book?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Yes lets keep investing scenarios without any evidence to support them as we go along, anything other than to accept that this didn't happen in the way described and that there is no evidence to show Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested for these crimes was not the Kosmisnki referred to, and to that end for thos who may not know here are the difference in the antecedent of Aaron Kosminski and the other Kosminski referred to.

        Aaron Kosminski - Incarcerated in asylum 1891 died 1919

        Magnaghten Memo - He was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. Not Aaron Kosminski then !

        Swanson 1895 Pall mall Gazette “The Whitechapel Murders were the work of a man who is now dead.” Not Aaron Kosminski
        Aaron Kosminki was very much alive in 1895 and clearly show the police were still looking for the killer at that time

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        It's not 'inventing scenarios', it's looking at what the sources are saying and assessing the possible implications. It's looking to see if there is supportive evidence, any conclusion one can test, any avenue for further research. It's doing the right things, which is why you probably don't recognise it.

        But hey, it's easier to base conclusions on assumptions, like 'there is no evidence to show Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested', but nobody has ever said Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested. Or conclude that an account of an unconventional event can't be true because the event doesn't conform to conventional rules and regulations. Doh!
        Last edited by PaulB; 08-26-2019, 09:55 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
          Apqrt from the Kosminski note being discussed, did Swanson make any other annotations in his copy of Anderson's book?
          Yes. It might be easier to pass on this link that Adam Wood put on a Swanson Facebook discussion yesterday - www.donaldswanson.co.uk/marginalia.pdf It's a superb article.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

            Yes. It might be easier to pass on this link that Adam Wood put on a Swanson Facebook discussion yesterday - www.donaldswanson.co.uk/marginalia.pdf It's a superb article.
            Thank you, I will have a read!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

              It's not 'inventing scenarios', it's looking at what the sources are saying and assessing the possible implications. It's looking to see if there is supportive evidence, any conclusion one can test, any avenue for further research. It's doing the right things, which is why you probably don't recognise it.

              But hey, it's easier to base conclusions on assumptions, like 'there is no evidence to show Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested', but nobody has ever said Aaron Kosminski was ever arrested. Or conclude that an account of an unconventional event can't be true because the event doesn't conform to conventional rules and regulations. Doh!
              I am not going to continue to argue over this ID. I have set out a good case to show why this could not have taken place as described along with the facts that suggest Aaron Kosminski was not the Kosminksi referred to.

              I have also only touched briefly on the marginalia, and my belief that it was not all penned by Swanson himself and that is why there is no corroboration to be found today to corroborate this seaside home ID and why what is described is all wrong

              I know I am not the only one who believes this and looking back in time I see that I am not the only one who questions the authenticity of this marginalia see https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...son-marginalia

              I know that two separate handwriting examinations were carried out, one conveniently enough orchestrated by you !!!!!!!! both of which did not in my opinion conclusively prove that Donald Swanson was the author of all of the marginalia. I stlil stick by that, and I dont propose to go over it all again on here my full investigation into the marginalia and the handwriting expert used on both occasions is to be found in my book Jack the Ripper the real truth https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper...5752176&sr=8-2

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • It's fine if you think you have set out a good case to show why the identification could not have taken place, but you haven't. What you have done is assume that it was a formal identification parade and therefore that the police would have followed the applicable rules and regulations. The reality is that there is no evidence that it was a formal identification, or that it was an identification parade. The sources suggest an informal confrontation between the witness and suspect , and the marginalia also describes a manifestly unconventional event to which there is no reason to believe the rules and regulations would have applied. You have not addressed any of these points, you have simply repeated the same argument, and otherwise dodged and dived. But, as said, if you think you have set out a good case, fine. Just wish you could have supported your arguments.
                Last edited by PaulB; 08-26-2019, 11:14 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  There is a big difference between bending the rules and totally breaking them in law enforcement. Bending the rules might not jeopardize a prosecution, breaking them would.

                  Let me again show the guidelines for Id parades as set out in the Victorian police codes of practice

                  1. It is of the utmost importance that the identification of a person who may be charged with a criminal offence should be conducted in the fairest possible manner.
                  If a direct confrontation had taken place would that be described as fair- no it wouldnt

                  2. With this end in view the following procedure should be observed :
                  (a) The officer in charge of the case against the prisoner, although present, should take no part in the particular proceedings connected with the identification, which should be carried out by the officer on duty in charge of the station or court.
                  So at least one other officer would be needed to take charge of the parade usullay an Inspector
                  (b) The witnesses should not be allowed to see the accused before he is placed with others for the purpose of identification, nor should they be shown photographs of him or verbal or written descriptions.
                  (c) The accused should be placed among a number of persons (not police)—eight or more, of similar age, height, general appearance, and class of life. He should be invited to stand where he pleases among them, and to change his position after each witness has been called in. He should be asked if he has any objection to any of the persons present, or the arrangements made, and, if he wishes, his solicitor or a friend actually in attendance may be allowed to be present.
                  No evidence from anyone else confirming this took place
                  (d) The witnesses should be brought in one by one, and be directed to touch the person they identify. On leaving they should not be allowed to communicate with any other witness in waiting.
                  (e) Every circumstance attending the identification should be carefully noted by the officer carrying it out, and whether the accused be identified or not, care being taken that when a witness fails to identify the fact should be as carefully recorded with name and address as in the contrary case—the object being that no subsequent allegation of unfairness can lie.
                  A written record of the events that took place at the parade should have been made and filed, nothing on file anywhere
                  (f) Any statement made by the person suspected must be recorded at once and read over to the officer in charge of the case in the presence of the prisoner, who should be invited to sign it.
                  Again nothing in writing to show any comments if any were made by the suspect after being identified
                  Each case has to be judged on its merits both from a police perspective, and from those who now research historical cases such as this. You cannot say that because the police were corrupt, or broke the rules in one case it automatically applies to another. In this case using that as a yardstick just shows the desperation in wanting to believe this Id parade happened in the way described, and thus supporting Aaron Kosminki as a suspect.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Again, from the police code - Cases when the suspect is known but not available IE When the person in question refuses to be put on an ID parade.
                  If it is not practicable, a confrontation may be used. A confrontation is when the suspect is directly confronted by the eye-witness. A confrontation does not require the suspect’s consent.
                  Regards Darryl

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                    Again, from the police code - Cases when the suspect is known but not available IE When the person in question refuses to be put on an ID parade.
                    If it is not practicable, a confrontation may be used. A confrontation is when the suspect is directly confronted by the eye-witness. A confrontation does not require the suspect’s consent.
                    Regards Darryl
                    That puts the cap on it, Darryl.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                      That puts the cap on it, Darryl.
                      I dont know what codes you are working from they are not the same ones I am working from where it says no such thing, That what you refer to is what used to be used in more modern times with the police codes of practice.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • I'm not working from any police codes, Trevor. Try addressing post 157.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                          It's fine if you think you have set out a good case to show why the identification could not have taken place, but you haven't. What you have done is assume that it was a formal identification parade and therefore that the police would have followed the applicable rules and regulations. The reality is that there is no evidence that it was a formal identification, or that it was an identification parade. The sources suggest an informal confrontation between the witness and suspect , and the marginalia also describes a manifestly unconventional event to which there is no reason to believe the rules and regulations would have applied. You have not addressed any of these points, you have simply repeated the same argument, and otherwise dodged and dived. But, as said, if you think you have set out a good case, fine. Just wish you could have supported your arguments.
                          There is a possibility that whomever was taken into custody, if anyone was, either institution or incarceration, it was done without the benefit of the legal process. Therefore looking for a rules and regulation procedure that fits here may be a waste of time.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Trevor in the late nineteenth century there was no such thing as a video ID and it is probably unlikely that rows of mugshots were used especially if the accused hadn't a hardened criminal record IE no photo. So you tell me please when there is a case where ID is crucial and now I am on about other cases as well besides JTR in Victorian times, say like if someone has survived an assault by an unknown person, yet can ID the unknown person but the unknown person refuses to go on an ID parade. How do they get the victim to ID the perpetrator?
                            Regards Darryl

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              There is a possibility that whomever was taken into custody, if anyone was, either institution or incarceration, it was done without the benefit of the legal process. Therefore looking for a rules and regulation procedure that fits here may be a waste of time.
                              Hi Michael,
                              Yes, that's basically what I have been saying, except there is no evidence that anyone was taken into custody or anything like that.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                                It's fine if you think you have set out a good case to show why the identification could not have taken place, but you haven't. What you have done is assume that it was a formal identification parade and therefore that the police would have followed the applicable rules and regulations. The reality is that there is no evidence that it was a formal identification, or that it was an identification parade. The sources suggest an informal confrontation between the witness and suspect , and the marginalia also describes a manifestly unconventional event to which there is no reason to believe the rules and regulations would have applied. You have not addressed any of these points, you have simply repeated the same argument, and otherwise dodged and dived. But, as said, if you think you have set out a good case, fine. Just wish you could have supported your arguments.
                                Okay never let it be said that I duck out of answering questions and I like you do not duck and dive.

                                The sources do not suggest an informal confrontation. The source refer to an ID parade, and the sources even conflict with each other.

                                The normal practice for staging ID parades was at a police station, there can be no plausible explantion for taking a suspect to a witness when it is usually the other way round. The logistics involve in such an excercise would have been almost unmanageable.

                                I have set out and shown that there were rules to be followed by the police with regards to the use of Id parades, those rules are clearly set out in the police codes. If any of those rules were not adhered to it would jeopardize the case, because a defense barrister would object to the evidence of Id being used because the guidelines were not adhered, to or sharp practice were used by the police.

                                What would be the point of having an informal ID. It would be of no evidential value, and clearly that was not the case if the police are to be believed when they said the witness would not testify, so that suggests that the police were looking to take the matter further to court had that witness agreed to testify and that the rules applying to ID parades had been adhered to. But we know there were no witnesses to any of the murders.

                                A direct confrontation without any supporting evidence would never stand up in court

                                Lawende keeps getting put forward as the mystery witness, but it seems despite him being a city witness, they were not involved in this ID parade, especially as he was the only witness who researchers suggest might have been ale to identify anyone see with any of the victims, but he says in his inquest testimony" I doubt whether I should know him again" so with that in mind why would the police use him, any positive ID he made would not have stood up in court anyway.

                                No other police officials make mention of this ID parade and its result, why when such an important case had such a major development, surlei it would have been the talk of the yard.

                                MM makes no mention of such an ID when discussing Kosminski

                                Major Smith makes no mention of having any knowledge of this, or allocating his officers to keep watch on a house in another police district

                                Taking a suspect who had just been identified as the killer and leaving him at home, this would never happen, they would have wanted to find a way of getting him off the streets, and not be able to kill again. If he had not been arrested then they would have had grounds to do so at that point in time, and then get him locked up in an asylum.

                                The marginalia is also suspect

                                So all in all can we believe this all took place as described, and for what ever reason you or others suggests it did?

                                I have nothing more to add. I hope this now answers all your questions you believe I keep ducking

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X