A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well if that had been the case they could have gone public with this positive ID and told the public to fear no more JTR was captured, they didn’t and why didn’t they because it never happened in the way we have been asked to believe all these years !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But if the witness refused to testify against him.....

[Trevor Marriott]

But if the witness refused to testify against him.....

Thats irrelevant, if the ID was that positive and the police believed they had the killer, and he was incarcerated never to be released why would they not go public in the way I suggest? great kudos for them after having the public against them all the while the murders were taking place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thats irrelevant, if the ID was that positive and the police believed they had the killer, and he was incarcerated never to be released why would they not go public in the way I suggest? great kudos for them after having the public against them all the while the murders were taking place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What if they suspected that he might have been released but at that current time they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him? Would they have risked accusing someone in public that they might not have had a sufficient case against?

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

Just a bit of pondering here on my part. On the assumption that a Jewish witness was presented with a Jewish suspect at some location and that the end result was for the witness to refuse to testify against the suspect, what always struck me as difficult about thing described in the marginalia is the notion that a positive ID was made and then withdrawn because the witness then found out the suspect was Jewish.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but it comes across to me that the reason for the refusal to swear to the identification is one that has been assumed to be the case, rather than, for example, the witness just not being sure (so the identification might have been more of "that could be him, but I'm not sure"), and that uncertainty would certainly explain why the witness might be reluctant to swear to an identification where the suspect could end up getting hanged as a result. The fact both were Jewish may have played no part in the witnesses motivation for not swearing to it in court.

The assumption could very easily be made that the "both were Jews" was part of this refusal to swear given the prejudices of the time even though it in fact may have played no part.

Now, none of this gets us any closer as to the where's or who's of this whole thing (or even if it happened at all), but it does temper how strongly we should consider thi identification to have been if it happened at all. It reads to me like it was far less definitive than it is made out to be, and the "because he was a fellow Jew" aspect is just there to bolster a claim of "we had solved it - not our fault he wasn't tried".

And, following on from that possibility, Lawende, even at the time, did say he would not recognize the man he saw at Church Passage. If that's the case, all we have is the possibility that some Jewish fellow might have been presented as a suspect and whoever that was was not someone who was wildly different from Lawende's rather meager description. So, not a whole lot to go on really.

I don't get the impression the entire thing is a fabrication, but given the time delay between the event and it's recording, I would be highly surprised if the details of actual event upon which this memory is based correspond all that well to what's been written. In particular, nuances of how certain that identification was are likely to have become misremembered a great deal. Even basic facts (date, locations, etc) get misremembered and modified in our memories over time. Unfortunately, that's just how human memory works. I would be more confident in the specifics had this been recorded immediately after the event, but even then we know things get muddled (i.e. think of the various wordings of the graffiti that were all written down at the time - the fact that we have more than one version being testified to shows just how fragile the details can be).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

What if they suspected that he might have been released but at that current time they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him? Would they have risked accusing someone in public that they might not have had a sufficient case against?

But if he was as insane as is suggested, he would never have been released in any event so its a win win situation, either way he is off the streets having been identified.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi all,

Just a bit of pondering here on my part. On the assumption that a Jewish witness was presented with a Jewish suspect at some location and that the end result was for the witness to refuse to testify against the suspect, what always struck me as difficult about thing described in the marginalia is the notion that a positive ID was made and then withdrawn because the witness then found out the suspect was Jewish.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but it comes across to me that the reason for the refusal to swear to the identification is one that has been assumed to be the case, rather than, for example, the witness just not being sure (so the identification might have been more of "that could be him, but I'm not sure"), and that uncertainty would certainly explain why the witness might be reluctant to swear to an identification where the suspect could end up getting hanged as a result. The fact both were Jewish may have played no part in the witnesses motivation for not swearing to it in court.

The assumption could very easily be made that the "both were Jews" was part of this refusal to swear given the prejudices of the time even though it in fact may have played no part.

Now, none of this gets us any closer as to the where's or who's of this whole thing (or even if it happened at all), but it does temper how strongly we should consider thi identification to have been if it happened at all. It reads to me like it was far less definitive than it is made out to be, and the "because he was a fellow Jew" aspect is just there to bolster a claim of "we had solved it - not our fault he wasn't tried".

And, following on from that possibility, Lawende, even at the time, did say he would not recognize the man he saw at Church Passage. If that's the case, all we have is the possibility that some Jewish fellow might have been presented as a suspect and whoever that was was not someone who was wildly different from Lawende's rather meager description. So, not a whole lot to go on really.

I don't get the impression the entire thing is a fabrication, but given the time delay between the event and it's recording, I would be highly surprised if the details of actual event upon which this memory is based correspond all that well to what's been written. In particular, nuances of how certain that identification was are likely to have become misremembered a great deal. Even basic facts (date, locations, etc) get misremembered and modified in our memories over time. Unfortunately, that's just how human memory works. I would be more confident in the specifics had this been recorded immediately after the event, but even then we know things get muddled (i.e. think of the various wordings of the graffiti that were all written down at the time - the fact that we have more than one version being testified to shows just how fragile the details can be).

- Jeff

As far as ID is concerned in todays modern world a witness has to make a positive ID, if he says "I think its him" it is not regarded as a positive ID.

This could not have happened in the way described by Swanson and Anderson, physically or legally.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

The assumption could very easily be made that the "both were Jews" was part of this refusal to swear given the prejudices of the time even though it in fact may have played no part.

This is my thinking, Jeff. I don't believe the witness literally refused to testify because the suspect was a fellow jew. That might have been the case for all we know, but the conclusion itself was conjecture on Anderson & Swanson's part.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all,

Just a bit of pondering here on my part. On the assumption that a Jewish witness was presented with a Jewish suspect at some location and that the end result was for the witness to refuse to testify against the suspect, what always struck me as difficult about thing described in the marginalia is the notion that a positive ID was made and then withdrawn because the witness then found out the suspect was Jewish.

I can't quite put my finger on why, but it comes across to me that the reason for the refusal to swear to the identification is one that has been assumed to be the case, rather than, for example, the witness just not being sure (so the identification might have been more of "that could be him, but I'm not sure"), and that uncertainty would certainly explain why the witness might be reluctant to swear to an identification where the suspect could end up getting hanged as a result. The fact both were Jewish may have played no part in the witnesses motivation for not swearing to it in court.

The assumption could very easily be made that the "both were Jews" was part of this refusal to swear given the prejudices of the time even though it in fact may have played no part.

Now, none of this gets us any closer as to the where's or who's of this whole thing (or even if it happened at all), but it does temper how strongly we should consider thi identification to have been if it happened at all. It reads to me like it was far less definitive than it is made out to be, and the "because he was a fellow Jew" aspect is just there to bolster a claim of "we had solved it - not our fault he wasn't tried".

And, following on from that possibility, Lawende, even at the time, did say he would not recognize the man he saw at Church Passage. If that's the case, all we have is the possibility that some Jewish fellow might have been presented as a suspect and whoever that was was not someone who was wildly different from Lawende's rather meager description. So, not a whole lot to go on really.

I don't get the impression the entire thing is a fabrication, but given the time delay between the event and it's recording, I would be highly surprised if the details of actual event upon which this memory is based correspond all that well to what's been written. In particular, nuances of how certain that identification was are likely to have become misremembered a great deal. Even basic facts (date, locations, etc) get misremembered and modified in our memories over time. Unfortunately, that's just how human memory works. I would be more confident in the specifics had this been recorded immediately after the event, but even then we know things get muddled (i.e. think of the various wordings of the graffiti that were all written down at the time - the fact that we have more than one version being testified to shows just how fragile the details can be).

- Jeff

Good points Jeff. Let’s face it, it would have been a huge weight to have on the witnesses conscience if he’d refused to confirm the suspects identity only to have him positively identified by another 3 months later after he’d killed another 3 women. If an ID in some form took place I’d agree that a more likely explanation for a refusal would have been a lack of certainty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But if he was as insane as is suggested, he would never have been released in any event so its a win win situation, either way he is off the streets having been identified.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

People did occasionally recover and leave an asylum.

[Trevor Marriott]

People did occasionally recover and leave an asylum.

Not given the circumstances surrounding Kosminski. do you really think under such circumstances he would have been released not in a month of sundays

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What if they suspected that he might have been released but at that current time they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him? Would they have risked accusing someone in public that they might not have had a sufficient case against?

They wouldn't need to publicly name the suspect

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

If, as seems likely Kosminski was a suspect [Strong suspect, Mac, Suspects name, Swanson], it seems reasonable to suggest that the police would have tried questioning him. They would probably only have had a small length of time to hold him and not enough evidence to charge him originally. So they try an ID with a witness to further gather evidence. When a suspect is known but not available, IE he refuses to be put on some form of ID parade, the police can use a confrontation without the suspects consent. This is probably what happened with Kosminski. The witness was probably not certain he was the right man [for whatever reason], so the police had to let Kosminski go [not enough evidence]. Only for him to be watched afterwards, [City police, day and night, Swanson]. So his family decided the best course of action was to place him in Colney Hatch.
Is this a reasonable course of proceedings or am I missing something?
Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

If, as seems likely Kosminski was a suspect [Strong suspect, Mac, Suspects name, Swanson], it seems reasonable to suggest that the police would have tried questioning him. They would probably only have had a small length of time to hold him and not enough evidence to charge him originally. So they try an ID with a witness to further gather evidence. When a suspect is known but not available, IE he refuses to be put on some form of ID parade, the police can use a confrontation without the suspects consent. This is probably what happened with Kosminski. The witness was probably not certain he was the right man [for whatever reason], so the police had to let Kosminski go [not enough evidence]. Only for him to be watched afterwards, [City police, day and night, Swanson]. So his family decided the best course of action was to place him in Colney Hatch.
Is this a reasonable course of proceedings or am I missing something?
Regards Darryl

no id say your bang on. and also that the police were probably also hoping that with a confrontation ID, of a chance that kosminski would confess.

[Trevor Marriott]

If, as seems likely Kosminski was a suspect [Strong suspect, Mac, Suspects name, Swanson], it seems reasonable to suggest that the police would have tried questioning him. They would probably only have had a small length of time to hold him and not enough evidence to charge him originally. So they try an ID with a witness to further gather evidence. When a suspect is known but not available, IE he refuses to be put on some form of ID parade, the police can use a confrontation without the suspects consent. This is probably what happened with Kosminski. The witness was probably not certain he was the right man [for whatever reason], so the police had to let Kosminski go [not enough evidence]. Only for him to be watched afterwards, [City police, day and night, Swanson]. So his family decided the best course of action was to place him in Colney Hatch.
Is this a reasonable course of proceedings or am I missing something?
Regards Darryl

There is no evidence to show kosminski was ever arrested and for any of the aspects of the I’d parade to have been real that would have had to happen
it did not and could not have happened

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Why could it not have happened Trevor?