Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

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

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    Hi Simon,

    He was identified by a fellow jew witness who is unknown to us, there is a good case for Schwarz being the witness.

    I have a great respect for chief inspector Donald Swanson, when he says Kosminski was the suspect, then Kosminski was the suspect.

    I understand your take on Anderson, but that is not enough to rule out this identification,



    The Baron
    The whole ID procedure as described which you seem to want to accept is totally flawed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    here is the guidelines for ID parades in Victorian Times


    Identification of Prisoners.-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.

    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
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 02-18-2022, 08:43 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Fishy,

    You can blame that idea on A System of Legal Medicine, Allan McLane Hamilton, M.D., F.R.S.E., 2nd Edition, New York 1900.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Fishy,

    You can blame that idea on A System of Legal Medicine, Allan McLane Hamilton, M.D., F.R.S.E., 2nd Edition, New York 1900.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post
    So if I told someone there is a poster on casebook who thinks this identification is bogus, but I didn't say his name is Simon Wood, that means I am fabricating this ?!



    The Baron
    Dont worry Baron, Simon recently put forward the suggestion that the mutilated corpse of Mary Jane Kelly could possibly have been a ''male'' due to her injuries that prevented a positive i.d !!!! . Hows that for not making sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Sorry, Baron, that makes no sense at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    So if I told someone there is a poster on casebook who thinks this identification is bogus, but I didn't say his name is Simon Wood, that means I am fabricating this ?!



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Baron,

    "Positively identified," and "there is a good case for Schwartz being the witness" do not jive. It smacks more of wishful thinking.

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Hi Simon,

    He was identified by a fellow jew witness who is unknown to us, there is a good case for Schwarz being the witness.

    I have a great respect for chief inspector Donald Swanson, when he says Kosminski was the suspect, then Kosminski was the suspect.

    I understand your take on Anderson, but that is not enough to rule out this identification,



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Baron,

    Positively identified by whom?

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post

    I can think of a nasty, wee, broad shouldered blotchy guy who might beg to differ.

    Then you must have some secret information that Kosminski was not that nasty wee broad shouldered blotchy guy you are rooting for.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • barnflatwyngarde
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    Agree, no one is even close.

    He was positively identified, and, if the shawl and DNA saga is in any way true, then it is a case closed.



    The Baron
    I can think of a nasty, wee, broad shouldered blotchy guy who might beg to differ.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by Tonylondon View Post
    Yes by far he is the best suspect

    Agree, no one is even close.

    He was positively identified, and, if the shawl and DNA saga is in any way true, then it is a case closed.



    The Baron

    Leave a comment:


  • Tonylondon
    replied
    Yes by far he is the best suspect

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    I am wondering if the Seaside home mentioned by Swanson in his famous marginalia could be a reference to the Sailors Home in Well St [now Ensign St], and the nearby Destitute Sailors' Asylum which was on the next street , Dock St. Both built, seven years apart to provide shelter and food for seamen by perhaps the same philanthropists.

    The location is tempting less than a mile from Mitre Sq and Aldgate [Butchers row suspect?], in City Police territory [watched by City Police, so in effect their suspect for Eddowes murder] and less than a mile from Lawende's workplace St Mary Axe. If indeed Lawende was the witness.
    Hi Darryl,
    I believe the two homes were actually in Met police territory (being very close to Leman Street station). However, as I understand it, both the Met and the City police had the legal rights of investigation and arrest anywhere.in England and Wales, including in each others' patrolled territory.

    I also seem to recall that the City force were doing undercover surveillance well before Eddowes was murdered - if you can believe Chief Supt Smith, as Early as August.​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    I am wondering if the Seaside home mentioned by Swanson in his famous marginalia could be a reference to the Sailors Home in Well St [now Ensign St], and the nearby Destitute Sailors' Asylum which was on the next street , Dock St. Both built, seven years apart to provide shelter and food for seamen by perhaps the same philanthropists.

    The location is tempting less than a mile from Mitre Sq and Aldgate [Butchers row suspect?], in City Police territory [watched by City Police, so in effect their suspect for Eddowes murder] and less than a mile from Lawende's workplace St Mary Axe. If indeed Lawende was the witness.

    It seems strange to me that you would take a witness and a suspect miles [Brighton], just to confront the witness with the suspect, why not do that in London?. Doesn't sound much like a proper ID and could their actually be one with Kosminski's deteriorating mental condition?

    Bearing in mind that Lawende said that the man he sighted had the appearance of a sailor. What better place to put a mentally unstable suspect who may have been a sailor in front of a witness than an asylum for sailors. Now I believe not everybody or indeed probably most people who resided there suffered from mental illness but it still gives the ID an air of credibility to it in case there was a court case. In fact Lawende could have been confronted with a few seamen, one at a time but it was Kosminski he recognised. He certainly didn't know he was a Jew at the time [when he learned he was a fellow Jew, he declined to give evidence] and probably not a sailor.

    Although I have no proof of this and just a few suggestions it is tempting. A suspect who had the appearance of a sailor but wasn't, yet picked out by a witness at a Sailors home after perhaps looking at a few other seamen beforehand. Even if Lawende says he wasn't positive and reminded the Police that he only had a cursory glance at the murderer it might have hardened the thoughts of Anderson and maybe Swanson that Kosminski was their man. Particularly after he said Sadler wasn't the man not long after, even though he could be seen as a reasonable suspect. He could even have been used at the Sadler ID to test his veracity. Pick out Sadler as well and the case against Kosminski gets watered down, but he didn't.

    Regards Darryl
    good post dk. do you think lawende was the witness?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X