Tweet
A while ago there was an interesting thread on the police's treatment of eyewitness statements.
It seems the authorities withheld or altered information on purpose so as not to have the mob trying to lynch random people who would fit the descriptions given by Lawende & Schwartz.
Meanwhile they had the descriptions available for their own investigation, and later we learned that Lawende was used in the case of Thomas Sadler and most likely also in the case of Aaron Kosminski for purposes of identification. This in spite of the fact that Lawende had stated years earlier at the inquest that most likely he would not recognize the face of the man he saw standing with Eddowes.
The question I would like to pose to the more experienced researchers on these boards is that how come there were no routine identifications using witnesses Lawende & Schwartz vis-a-vis all interrogated suspects in the autumn and winter of 1888? At least we have no written records that such identifications have taken place. And we know that among others, Dr. Francis Tumblety was in police custody, while Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson were interrogated by police, and suspicion was cast on Michael Ostrog and Montague J. Druitt (post-mortem). Since here the police had two witnesses who had had a good view of the suspect(s) minutes before murders were committed, how difficult can it be to arrange for a (post-mortem) identification, and match both identifications against another?
Or have identifications taken place, all with negative results, were correctly recorded in police files, and the files later destroyed during the war? If so why did McNaghten mention those suspects? Stewart P. Evans mentions in his dissertation Suspect and Witness - The Police Viewpoint that although the interrogation technique used with Hutchinson was not up to today's standard (as can be judged from the witness statement's transcript), the police in general were very experienced and acting professional for their time. So how come the police give the impression of having been grossly negligent to the point of incompetence when it came to arranging simple identifications? Is there a legal reason connected to it or are there historical reasons that identifications were not commonly used?
I am grateful for all answers and comments,
Thank you very much
IchabodCrane
It seems the authorities withheld or altered information on purpose so as not to have the mob trying to lynch random people who would fit the descriptions given by Lawende & Schwartz.
Meanwhile they had the descriptions available for their own investigation, and later we learned that Lawende was used in the case of Thomas Sadler and most likely also in the case of Aaron Kosminski for purposes of identification. This in spite of the fact that Lawende had stated years earlier at the inquest that most likely he would not recognize the face of the man he saw standing with Eddowes.
The question I would like to pose to the more experienced researchers on these boards is that how come there were no routine identifications using witnesses Lawende & Schwartz vis-a-vis all interrogated suspects in the autumn and winter of 1888? At least we have no written records that such identifications have taken place. And we know that among others, Dr. Francis Tumblety was in police custody, while Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson were interrogated by police, and suspicion was cast on Michael Ostrog and Montague J. Druitt (post-mortem). Since here the police had two witnesses who had had a good view of the suspect(s) minutes before murders were committed, how difficult can it be to arrange for a (post-mortem) identification, and match both identifications against another?
Or have identifications taken place, all with negative results, were correctly recorded in police files, and the files later destroyed during the war? If so why did McNaghten mention those suspects? Stewart P. Evans mentions in his dissertation Suspect and Witness - The Police Viewpoint that although the interrogation technique used with Hutchinson was not up to today's standard (as can be judged from the witness statement's transcript), the police in general were very experienced and acting professional for their time. So how come the police give the impression of having been grossly negligent to the point of incompetence when it came to arranging simple identifications? Is there a legal reason connected to it or are there historical reasons that identifications were not commonly used?
I am grateful for all answers and comments,
Thank you very much
IchabodCrane
Comment