Let´s talk about that identification again

[robhouse]

Rob
There is no equivocation in the identification as described by Anderson nor in the marginalia. The suspect knew he had been positively identified. The police knew he had been identified and knew the exact reason why the witness would not proceed. No guesswork. It was known. According to those sources.

Equivocation is an odd word to use here. There is no real elaboration either. There is no indication about the degree of certainty the witness felt one way or the other.

RH

[Lechmere]

Lynn
Be very careful.
If additional evidence was requied to convict you are in essence contradicting Swanson. How dare you.

[lynn cates]

Eddowes

Hello (again) Rob. Thanks.

"I think most rational people would naturally assume that the man Lawende saw was Eddowes' killer."

Of course--given that Lawende saw Eddowes.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Rob
There is no equivocation in the identification as described by Anderson nor in the marginalia. The suspect knew he had been positively identified. The police knew he had been identified and knew the exact reason why the witness would not proceed. No guesswork. It was known. According to those sources.

[lynn cates]

additional evidence

Hello Rob. Thanks.

I agree that additional evidence would have been required to convict.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

chatting with a woman whilst she lays her hand on your chest, and shoving a lady and yelling a racial slur are not hanging offenses.

No, but being identified as a man who was seen talking to a woman, who turns up dead 5 minutes later, is circumstantial evidence suggesting guilt. It certainly is suspicious, and I think most rational people would naturally assume that the man Lawende saw was Eddowes' killer.

RH

[robhouse]

Hello Rob.

"For example, what if this had happened.

The suspect is brought out, and the witness nods and says "yup, looks like the guy." Anderson says, "OK will you testify in court that this is the man you saw?"

"Well, I am not 100% sure it's him. It looks like him. I think it is him.""

Actually, I like this. It's consistent with how things really happen.

"Then, from what we know, the man somehow "learns" the suspect is Jewish."

Very plausible. But, if true, it would lay to rest the "Semitic looking" business.

"And perhaps is told that his evidence is the key to their whole case... that his testimony will hang the suspect."

In which case, both Lawende and Schwartz are ruled out, as chatting with a woman whilst she lays her hand on your chest, and shoving a lady and yelling a racial slur are not hanging offenses.

Cheers.
LC

Well, as I have written before... I do not think that the identification, if that was all they had, would have been sufficient to convict. So I assume that the police had other significant evidence against Kozminski. The identification, in combination with this other evidence, I think could have secured a conviction if the witness was Lawende or Schwartz.

RH

[lynn cates]

scenario

Hello Rob.

"For example, what if this had happened.

The suspect is brought out, and the witness nods and says "yup, looks like the guy." Anderson says, "OK will you testify in court that this is the man you saw?"

"Well, I am not 100% sure it's him. It looks like him. I think it is him.""

Actually, I like this. It's consistent with how things really happen.

"Then, from what we know, the man somehow "learns" the suspect is Jewish."

Very plausible. But, if true, it would lay to rest the "Semitic looking" business.

"And perhaps is told that his evidence is the key to their whole case... that his testimony will hang the suspect."

In which case, both Lawende and Schwartz are ruled out, as chatting with a woman whilst she lays her hand on your chest, and shoving a lady and yelling a racial slur are not hanging offenses.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

OK, let's put it this way. You wrote, "the witness states - he's the murderer but I'm not giving evidence in court."

We have no idea that the witness ever stated this, in fact, I seriously doubt he did. Anderson say the witness "unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him." This means the man did not hesitate... in other words, he indicated a positive identification (somehow) rather quickly after the suspect (Kozminski) was put before him.

Now this could have been a simple nod, or perhaps, "Yup, looks like the guy", or perhaps "Yeah, that's him... I think." Anderson does not state that the man was absolutely positive in his identification, and given the evidence, I doubt he could have been. So again, you are putting words in the mouth of the witness, and characterizing the whole situation in a way that (as I said before) we cannot infer from what is known.

Fo example, what if this had happened.

The suspect is brought out, and the witness nods and says "yup, looks like the guy." Anderson says, "OK will you testify in court that this is the man you saw?"

"Well, I am not 100% sure its him. It looks like him. I think it is him."

Then, from what we know, the man somehow "learns" the suspect is Jewish. And perhaps is told that his evidence is the key to their whole case... that his testimony will hang the suspect.

Now the guy says, "look I told you. It looks like the man I saw, but it was dark, it was a long time ago, and I only got a fleeting glimpse of him. And like I told you then, I can't be sure I would recognize him again. So if this is all you have, there is no way I am going to go in court and swear this is the man I saw, because for one thing, all hell will break out in the East End between the jews and gentiles, and I don't want this man's fate on my conscience."

Now do you see what I am getting at. We simply cannot say that the man simply stated "he's the murderer but I'm not giving evidence in court." If that was the case, then yes, maybe they could have forced him to testify. But I doubt it went down like that.

RH

[Wickerman]

Nonsense.

Swanson tells us his views.

At no point does he tell us these are the views of Anderson.

You are making assumptions, or jumping through hoops, take your pick; which are in no way reflected in Swanson's notes.

Some have a vested interest in diluting Swanson's notes, of course.

I have to agree with the view that Swanson chooses his words carefully, his comments can easily be read as merely illuminating and clarifying the reason's for Anderson's suspicions.

At no point in those notes does Swanson clearly give his own opinion on whether the suspect was the killer.
Its that careful choice of words which suggests to me Swanson was not as convinced as Anderson, and his marginalia was only intended to fill in the blanks, not provide support.

Regards, Jon S.

[Observer]

As you say Monty if the viewing at the Seaside Home took place it was very much an unofficial procedure. If the witness was Lawende, and he refused to give evidence what could they do? Absolutely nothing is the answer. Lawende was on record as saying he would not recognise the man again. If he had been forced to give evidence in court against Kosminski, all he had to do was stick to his original story.

It was all Anderson bluster anyway. The case would not have went to court on the strength of Lawende's evidence alone, even if he had agreed to finger Kosminski in court as the man he saw on the 30th September 1888
Regards

Observer

[Lechmere]

Monty
“However what of Andersons statement that the witness refused to give confirmation as it would result in hanging a fellow Jew? This I cannot honestly answer. Maybe Anderson was bolstering his words to sell a book?”

If one takes the marginalia as Swanson’s words and opinion, then it was Swanson who said:
“because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind.”
And
“after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London.”
And
“After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty, in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified.”

Swanson said that the Jewish witness didn’t want to give evidence as it would result in the suspect being hung. Was he trying to bolster his words to sell a book?

[Monty]

Well exactly Mr Lucky,

This, I feel, is an exaggeration on Andersons part, something which seems to fit with his boastful nature.

Im pretty sure that unless the witness viewed the act of murder, what he saw on its own would not condem. However the witness may have seen something which, when coupled with other evidence, could have damned. However I freely admit I'm speculating.

Edward,

Ok, point partly taken, partly dismissed. I'll leave you to decide which.

Monty

[Mr Lucky]

Basically, and forgive me if I'm wrong Mr Lucky, Mr L is quering that if the witness refused to give evidence against the suspect why wasn't he charged within section 8, 1861 Accessories and Abbettors act? In other words, in refusal, the witness should have been charged as an accomplace in the murders.

Hi Monty

Yes, thanks, that is what I'm referring to.

On assumes the witness did not see the murder take place and therefore cannot be charged as such.

But , the witness would be the means by which the murderer was hung, so if he didn't actually see the murder take place, what could the evidence be that would be so damning as to result in the defendent being found guilty and hung?

[Lechmere]

Hi Neil
I’m not expecting you to start ignoring me.
But you don’t seem to understand what I say very well.
I’ve never suggested that Swanson didn’t hold a prominent position in the case.
I haven’t said Swanson was an incompetent Constable in the general course of his duties. I have explained that matter at some length.
I have said that if he wrote the annotations in Anderson’s book and if he was referring to Aaron Kosminsky, then his lack of knowledge about when Kosminsky died shows gross incompetence.
If he got the suspect's name wrong and he was talking about someone else, then that again shows gross incompetence.
That is my opinion. I see you have avoided commentating on these substantive points, as usual.

I presume you are referring to Karen Trenouth.
But we both know that you avoid commenting on the more eccentric theories and only turn when your view is threatened.