A possibility for the Seaside Home?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you for the reply Trevor I just want to make a point about the suspect being identified in his cell. I am assuming this was possibly done a lot in Victorian times if an ID parade couldn't be arranged. The point I want to make is suppose the Victorian police couldn't hold the suspect in the cell because they just had some circumstantial evidence but not enough without some ID evidence, [remember forensics was very limited back then and ID evidence was given a lot more credence than now]. Wouldn't the police try their very best to obtain the crucial [back then], ID evidence? And use some form of confrontation ID. I know you question the legality of this Trevor but couldn't the police say the suspect was known but not available IE he refused or was incapable of such parade? As the CPS site says can happen.
Regards Darryl

In Victorian times, the police after arresting someone could legally hold that person for up to 24 hours. long enough for a full ID parade to be formulated, Circumstantial evidence would be grounds for arrest on suspicion. If he was deemed to be insane following his arrest he would have to be examined by doctors who if they certified him would stop all other police action and he would be carted way to an asylum.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Before this photos were show to witnesses from albums, or line ups were used to test a witnesses identification. If a suspect would not stand on a parade, as a last resort a direct confrontation would take place usually by a witness being take to the suspects cell and making an ID there. Of course that without any corroborating evidence would not stand up in court. There was also what was called dock identifications where a witness would point out the person who was already seated in the dock, again for obvious reasons his was unsafe with corroborating evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you for the reply Trevor I just want to make a point about the suspect being identified in his cell. I am assuming this was possibly done a lot in Victorian times if an ID parade couldn't be arranged. The point I want to make is suppose the Victorian police couldn't hold the suspect in the cell because they just had some circumstantial evidence but not enough without some ID evidence, [remember forensics was very limited back then and ID evidence was given a lot more credence than now]. Wouldn't the police try their very best to obtain the crucial [back then], ID evidence? And use some form of confrontation ID. I know you question the legality of this Trevor but couldn't the police say the suspect was known but not available IE he refused or was incapable of such parade? As the CPS site says can happen.
Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

If someone is arrested and taken to a police station, or detained in an asylum there has to be records !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

In recent time Identification procedures have changed the system no used is called VIPER Video Identification Parade Electronic Recording.

Before this photos were show to witnesses from albums, or line ups were used to test a witnesses identification. If a suspect would not stand on a parade, as a last resort a direct confrontation would take place usually by a witness being take to the suspects cell and making an ID there. Of course that without any corroborating evidence would not stand up in court. There was also what was called dock identifications where a witness would point out the person who was already seated in the dock, again for obvious reasons his was unsafe with corroborating evidence.

For all ID procedures a suspect has to be arrested first.

Nowadays it is all done on video with the suspect agreeing to have a 30 second video clip made of him, that is then put together with 8 others of similar description etc and the video is then shown to the victim who will beaked to make a positive ID

If the suspect refuses then the police will put together a parade using just photos and the court would be made aware that this was done because the suspect would not co-operate, With what they can do now with his system its much fairer than the old lineups.

I dealt with a case some time ago involving a Rastafarian with unique dreadlocks, the police then replicated his dreadlocks onto the heads of the others being used in the parade. so we finished up with 9 Rastafarians who all looked the same, and the witnesses still picked the suspect out.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[PaulB]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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.

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

https://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

[PaulB]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

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!