A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[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struck me as difficult about thing described in the marginalia is the notion that a positive ID was made and then withdrawn because the witness then found out the suspect was Jewish.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

[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?

[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]

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.....

[Darryl Kenyon]

thanks DK
but what authority could the police have to request of these places to use them for an ID if no one-the police, the witness or the suspect have no connection to the place? I could see if the witness or the suspect was staying there at the time the police could approach the manager/owner and explain the situation and ask for permission to do it. but if no one involved is already there and the police have no official connection there-see what I mean?

any chance the witness or suspect may have already been there? any police connection?

That is a fair point Abby it is something for me to look into.

[Trevor Marriott]

Did this have to be a formal ID parade? If Kosminski was raving at that time might not the police have settled for an informal identification to confirm to them that they had the right man? Especially if they expected him to have been incarcerated for a lengthy period and, for all they might have known, indefinitely? Might not an informal ID have been the best that they could do under the circumstances with the expectation of a considerable period of time in which to build a case against him?

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 !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, how can somebody in a normal ID parade who is probably on the verge of insanity and who was sent with great difficulty [Swanson] and therefore would probably not behave normally not stick out like a sore thumb in the parade? Would other arrangements not be made?
Regards Darryl

Any identification from a direct confrontation without any corroboration to support it would get thrown out of court and would probably never ever get that far

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

A doctor can give his consent for him to be removed but is the person then capabale of being able to then give their own consent. You cant just stick someone on an Id parade

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Did this have to be a formal ID parade? If Kosminski was raving at that time might not the police have settled for an informal identification to confirm to them that they had the right man? Especially if they expected him to have been incarcerated for a lengthy period and, for all they might have known, indefinitely? Might not an informal ID have been the best that they could do under the circumstances with the expectation of a considerable period of time in which to build a case against him?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, my feeling is Kos was sent to a Sailors lodging house or Seamans mission in Whitechapel for ID to give the ID more veracity. In other words Lawende specifically says, according to an internal memo by Swanson that Lawende thought the person he saw in Church passage had the appearance of a Sailor. Kos was probably too far gone to attend a normal ID parade. So if he is confronted by people who were Sailors, at a Sailors home one at a time and then is confronted by Kos who he thinks is his man it would lend the whole ID scenario a certain respectfulness. It would also explain why he didn't know Kos was a Jew to start with.
The reason I mention the two dwellings - Sailors Home in Well St [now Ensign St], and the nearby Destitute Sailors' Asylum is that they were connected, one built after the other and mainly because Anderson said in his autobiography that the witness was identified after he was in an asylum, [obviously different from Swanson's notes]. I know this is clutching at straws a little but could he have misremembered it as being identified in the Destitute Sailors' Asylum. It wasn't an asylum as such, more a place were homeless Seamen could have a bed for the night but it did bear the name asylum.
Regards Darryl

thanks DK
but what authority could the police have to request of these places to use them for an ID if no one-the police, the witness or the suspect have no connection to the place? I could see if the witness or the suspect was staying there at the time the police could approach the manager/owner and explain the situation and ask for permission to do it. but if no one involved is already there and the police have no official connection there-see what I mean?

any chance the witness or suspect may have already been there? any police connection?

[Darryl Kenyon]

This is from the Crown prosecution site - If the suspect does not consent to the procedure he may in effect be treated as being not available.

Guidance for the different types of identification procedures are set out in the Annex A-C of the Code. Cases when the suspect is known but not available

The Identification Officer may make arrangements for a video identification or group identification, if this is practicable. 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.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/identification

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

There is no evidence to suggest the situation ever presented itself in the first place. For him to have been taken anywhere he would have to have been first arrested. you cant just drag someone off the street, or from their home, or a hospital and transport them to some place and then subject them to an ID procedure. Such actions would prejudice any future proceedings. Not to mention the direct confrontation ID parade.

Here are the guidelines with regard to ID parades from the Victorian 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. (Direct confrontation is not fair) my words
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, how can somebody in a normal ID parade who is probably on the verge of insanity and who was sent with great difficulty [Swanson] and therefore would probably not behave normally not stick out like a sore thumb in the parade? Would other arrangements not be made?
Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, and also for Aaron`s well being if the Ripper. If deemed insane when in custody he goes to Broadmoor for life. If caught in the act he hangs.

Jon

You need to read and digest my recent posts on this topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps the answer to Kos being sent for ID is in the quote that he once threatened his sister with a knife. Perhaps the family were worried for their safety and fearing the worst and so one of them gave consent for Kos to be possibly identified.
Regards Darryl

Darryl

You need to read and digest my recent posts on this topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps the answer to Kos being sent for ID is in the quote that he once threatened his sister with a knife. Perhaps the family were worried for their safety and fearing the worst and so one of them gave consent for Kos to be possibly identified.
Regards Darryl

Yes, and also for Aaron`s well being if the Ripper. If deemed insane when in custody he goes to Broadmoor for life. If caught in the act he hangs.

[Darryl Kenyon]

A doctor can give his consent for him to be removed but is the person then capabale of being able to then give their own consent. You cant just stick someone on an Id parade

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps the answer to Kos being sent for ID is in the quote that he once threatened his sister with a knife. Perhaps the family were worried for their safety and fearing the worst and so one of them gave consent for Kos to be possibly identified.
Regards Darryl