Let´s talk about that identification again

[RivkahChaya]

I know it's a lot of supposing, and not sticking to the facts, but where did the witness get the idea that his evidence would, in fact, all by itself, convict the suspect? The police must have told him that.

I can't help imagining a scenario where a somewhat reluctant witness was being prodded by police who (over)emphasized how important his testimony was, in an attempt to convince him that he had a duty to testify, but they ended up making him more reluctant, by giving him that much responsibility.

Maybe I'm overthinking, but I still keep coming back to the idea that the witness wouldn't have thought he was the sole means of a person being executed, if the police hadn't told him that.

Also, how often did people hang on the basis of a single witness' testimony, and no other evidence? I realize that back then, juries convicted, and judges pronounced sentence, so the police probably could be fairly certain that, if convicted, the suspect would be executed, but the testimony had to be awfully convincing, absent of any other evidence.

I take that back-- clearly, the police had some reasonable belief that the witness had seen the killer-- not just the last person one of the women was with. But somehow the exact details of what made them so certain are lost.

[Lechmere]

Rob
What if (as I have suggested before) the witness did not hesitate when confronted with the suspect and said "yup, looks like the guy. As far as I remember... but it was a long time ago." This could be said "unhesitatingly, but it is not "very positive."

You may have suggested this before but it is not credible to suggest that Anderson’s book nor the annotations allow such an interpretation.

I would suggest that you cannot get much more positive than...
‘unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him’

Anderson did not say:
‘unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him as possibly looking like the guy but it was a long time ago’

And such a flimsy identification as you postulate would not have facilitated the annotated comment that the
‘witness would be the means of murderer being hanged’

Yet that identification is the evidence that would convict. No other unmentioned evidence – the identification.

Your analogy about the sports car also totally misses the point. It is blatantly clear what the annotation meant. The fact that the suspect was also a Jew, like the witness, was the thing that was on the witnesses mind. There is no hint of there being any other factor.

If there was doubt as to the suspect's identification then the suspect himself wouldn’t have known he had been identified would he?
‘after this identification which suspect knew’

The annotations then go on to say
'After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home’ – that again is a positive identification – not a maybe.

There really is no room for manoeuvre.

[robhouse]

No there is room to manoeuvre. The point is, you cite these things, then state what they say... except that they don't say what you claim.

So if it is as you say, then why was the witness not forced to testify?

RH

[Jonathan H]

Already Safely Caged?

Anderson and Swanson are possibly in conflict regarding the timeline of events.

In the first version of his memoirs, in 'Blackwoods' mag, Anderson writes that the suspect was already sectioned in an asylum. Then confronted and identified by a witness.

Therefore the suspect could not be arrested or charged, so the witness refusing to testify, while diapppointing, did not matter.

[Fisherman]

I don´t think that somebody can unhesitatingly identify somebody else as only perhaps being the man that did it.

Once it´s just perhaps, it not unhesitatingly.

When no hesitation is in place, then the ID is unhesitating, but only then.

To say that somebody is very much alike somebody else is not to identify that somebody as the culprit. It is to identify him or her as somebody who looks very much like the culprit, nothing else. It is a "it sure could have been, but I can´t be certain" case. It´s hesitation.

Anderson takes very great care not to leave any room for a failed ID. There was no hesitation on either part - the man was unhesitatingly ID:d - and recognized as much. The only reason Anderson puts it this way, is to ensure that no doubts can arise about the true identity of the man subjected to the identification - he WAS the man the witness had seen before, he did not just look like him.
The recognition of being aware that he had been made on behalf of the suspect is what definitely clinches the case. If he had NOT been the man looked for, and still unhesitatingly pointed out as this man nevertheless, then he would not acknowledge that the game was up by revealing that he knew he had been identified.

But the nature of the Anderson accusation act in combination with the marginalia is of such a nature as to force us to disbelieve or change elements in it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Rob
The words used by Anderson and the annotator are very clear, unambiguous and positive so far as the ID is concerned.

Why was the witness not forced to testify?
Well as I have stated I don't think there was a witness or an ID in the manner described - it is a muddled up and conflated story (or a possibly hoax in the annotated details).
There are glaring inconsistencies.
Yet if it were true in the mind of Anderson and DS Swanson then forcing an unwilling witness to testify - and if that witness's ID evidence was requied for the conviction, being the main evidence - then taking a case to court on such grounds might be deemed a wasted exercise.
However weak cases were taken to court. That suggests that in their minds the only real evidence was the ID.
But the whole situation is unsatisfactory in trying to rationalise what happened. Adding spurious details to the annotations gets us no nearer the truth - it actually takes us further away.

Jonathan
The annotations make it clear the suspect was sectioned after the ID.

[robhouse]

Rob
The words used by Anderson and the annotator are very clear, unambiguous and positive so far as the ID is concerned.

Why was the witness not forced to testify?
Well as I have stated I don't think there was a witness or an ID in the manner described - it is a muddled up and conflated story (or a possibly hoax in the annotated details).
There are glaring inconsistencies.
Yet if it were true in the mind of Anderson and DS Swanson then forcing an unwilling witness to testify - and if that witness's ID evidence was requied for the conviction, being the main evidence - then taking a case to court on such grounds might be deemed a wasted exercise.
However weak cases were taken to court. That suggests that in their minds the only real evidence was the ID.
But the whole situation is unsatisfactory in trying to rationalise what happened. Adding spurious details to the annotations gets us no nearer the truth - it actually takes us further away.

Jonathan
The annotations make it clear the suspect was sectioned after the ID.

That's as I suspected. You take the statements at a very precise, if twisted, interpretation up to the point that they are useful to you creating your straw man argument, then declare that based on your erroneous interpretation, the whole thing could not have happened, so you chuck both documents in the bin.

RH

[Jonathan H]

To Lechmere

You are quite mistaken because you are treating the Marginalia as unimpeachable fact, as Gospel.

It's nothing of the kind.

After Aaron Kosminski was sectioned Frances Coles was murdered and this was treated as a potential Jack murder -- including by Swanson himself who personally interviewed Sadler.

The Marginalia asserts, without ambiguity, that 'Kosminski' died after being sectioned, eg. 'soon after'. Anderson apparently told his son the same thing and it's hopelessly wrong. The 'suspect' outlived Anderson.

What has never been noticed is that Macnaghten, in 1894, is quite aware that 'Kosminski' the fictional variant of Aaron, was alive.

I quite appreciate that, outside of me and Mike, nobody here wishes to address, in-depth, that gaping wound.

So, let us concentrate on your claim that because Swanson wrote something unofficial and unverifiable then that's definitive.

It might be, if other sources turned up to confirm it -- so far there are none -- but it also might not be true too.

Anderson may have been correct in recalling that the identification happened after the suspect was 'safely caged'.

This would explain why the treacherous witness was so brazen at not co-operating with 'Gentile justice'. He knew the suspect was never unlikely to be going anywhere near a courtroom.

[Lechmere]

Rib
I have not twisted One word of what the annotations say, nor of what Anderson says.
I take their remarks at face value and then ask what could have led to these remarks being made.
That is a different approach to yours which is to give your own added meaning to what they said - added in that you add bits to their plain statements.

Jonathan
I most certainly don't take the marginalia as gospel or as fact.
Read what I have said again.
The proponents of the annotations ironically have to alter their meaning for them to be if use to their theory. I take them as they are - as a fact of what they say.
I think there is a good possibility it is a hoax, a fake.
I think if it is not a fake then it is a testimony to muddled up thinking and recollection - full of internal inconsistencies, but at the same time written with certainty.
Wish fullfillment.

[robhouse]

Rib
I have not twisted One word of what the annotations say, nor of what Anderson says.
I take their remarks at face value and then ask what could have led to these remarks being made.
That is a different approach to yours which is to give your own added meaning to what they said - added in that you add bits to their plain statements.

I have not added anything to their statements.. that is the whole pint I am trying to make. You have. You claim Anderson said the identification was "very positive." He did not say that. You claim Swanson said that the witness did not want the man to be hanged due to his being Jewish. He did not say that.

My only point is that there are different possible interpretations of these statements.

Show me what I have added.

RH

[Fisherman]

I have not added anything to their statements.. that is the whole pint I am trying to make. You have. You claim Anderson said the identification was "very positive." He did not say that. You claim Swanson said that the witness did not want the man to be hanged due to his being Jewish. He did not say that.

My only point is that there are different possible interpretations of these statements.

Show me what I have added.

RH

Rob!

I know that you are discussing with Edward and not me, but I will make a point here nevertheless. And that is since you write that Edward has added an element by saying that Anderson´s view is that the ID was very positive.

In fact, Rob, all identifications where the suspect is conclusively fingered are very positive. That is the nature of it all.

In the case at hand, we either have a positive identification or no identification at all. To postulate that the witness may have said, "Yes, that looks like the guy - at least I think so, but it was long ago and I can´t be totally sure" is to postulate that the ID was not successful.

Anderson says that the witness identified the suspect. You cannot do so without saying "Yes, that´s the man - I am sure of it". Once you waver and are reluctant to positively lay down that the suspect is the man that you have seen, you are not identifying him. You are in fact actively choosing not to identify him. After that, you may feel that if it is not the man, then he is at least somebody who looks more or less like the man you saw, and that won´t make a iot of difference - you are still not identifying him until you say "That´s him!"

So as far as I can tell, there is no adding involved in saying that Anderson was of the meaning that the ID was a positive such. He says that the witness identified the suspect, and you can´t do that if you are not positive that the man you point out is the right man.

What you suggest is a failed ID process. The scenario you propose is a scenario where the witness did NOT identify the suspect. He only said there was a likeness, and that´s not the same as identifying him.

I may also say that much as you state that Edwards has claimed that Anderson actually SAID that the ID was "very positive", I can only find Edward stating that "Anderson says the witness immediately and unhesitating identified the suspect as the murderer.
There is no room for doubt in Anderson’s words that a very positive and instantaneous identification was made."

So Edward does not say that Anderson used these exact words - he says that the wording he DID use left no room to accept that a very positive identification may not have taken place. And that´s a very different thing from claiming that Anderson did say the exact phrase.

I hope I´ve been clear - and I hope I haven´t missed anything!

All the best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

Fisherman,

So why was the witness not subpoenaed? If it was a positive ID, I assume that he could not refuse to testify just because he didn't want to.

RH

[The Good Michael]

So why was the witness not subpoenaed? If it was a positive ID, I assume that he could not refuse to testify just because he didn't want to.

It was probably as simple a thing as a retraction upon further consideration.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

So why was the witness not subpoenaed? If it was a positive ID, I assume that he could not refuse to testify just because he didn't want to.

RH

Thats another question, I´m afraid (I notice that Mike makes a suggestion, just as Edward has done)- the one and only thing I wanted to point out was that if Anderson´s witness identified the suspect, then it cannot have been a matter of "it looks like him" - it must have been an "it is him". Otherwise there would not have been an identification.

If it was just a matter of "It looks like him", then Anderson could have gotten away with the impression that the witness recognized the suspect - but never with the claim that he identified him.

All the best, Rob!
Fisherman

[robhouse]

So if the witness identified the suspect, then retracted (changed his mind, had second thoughts, doubts etc)--- would that be a positive identification, or a failed identification?

RH