Letīs talk about that identification again

[The Good Michael]

We can all be led astray in terms of deluding ourselves. I mean you only have to think of the a priori justification which is the catalyst for left-wing thinking.

Left-wing thinking? No such thing. There's concern for humanity, the ecology, and wealth disparity brought on by many different forms of slavery, but that's just honest thinking. There's right-wing NON-thinking (about others) of course. It's all about "what's in it for me", and it can be seen throughout government, big business, and in the religion control groups.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

Swanson wasn't conducting any "police" work when he annotated a copy of his boss' memoirs years after the murder investigation.

He cannot, therefore, be accused either of "gross incompetence" or bad policing.

He was free as a bird to write whatever liked about the identification

I would expect that an ex senior police officer would be imbued with operational ethics and would possess a mindset acquired during his time/experience/development as a serving senior police officer.

In the event that Swanson disposed of said ethics and mindset upon leaving the police force, to the extent that he willfully ignored that which he witnessed at the ID, then I would call into question Swanson's ability to undertake his duties earlier in his life.

After all, the ability to sift information objectively is pretty fundamental to his earlier position.

It is impossible - completely and utterly impossible - to accept that a witness "unhesitatingly identified" a suspect, but then retracted that identification after admitting himself that the reason for this retraction lay in the fact that the suspect was a fellow Jew. No sane person would undermine his credibility and risk prosecution so brazenly, foolishly, and illogically. If the witness had truly identified the suspect, and was truly anxious to avoid that suspect hanging after realising that he was a fellow Jew, he'd have lied about it. He's have said "actually, wait a minute, I don't think this is the guy after all".

It's only impossible when you begin at the position that it's impossible.

And when it comes to 'risking prosecution', then you have a choice to make. Your personal ethics or your personal liberty. It has been known for centuries that most people will make a decision based upon the outcome for themselves, while the minority will make a decision based upon principle regardless of the outcome. A sane person certainly can choose principle as the over-riding factor in decision making.

[Abby Normal]

I would expect that an ex senior police officer would be imbued with operational ethics and would possess a mindset acquired during his time/experience/development as a serving senior police officer.

In the event that Swanson disposed of said ethics and mindset upon leaving the police force, to the extent that he willfully ignored that which he witnessed at the ID, then I would call into question Swanson's ability to undertake his duties earlier in his life.

After all, the ability to sift information objectively is pretty fundamental to his earlier position.



It's only impossible when you begin at the position that it's impossible.

And when it comes to 'risking prosecution', then you have a choice to make. Your personal ethics or your personal liberty. It has been known for centuries that most people will make a decision based upon the outcome for themselves, while the minority will make a decision based upon principle regardless of the outcome. A sane person certainly can choose principle as the over-riding factor in decision making.

So people's memory of past events can't change over time?

[Fleetwood Mac]

So people's memory of past events can't change over time?

Clearly memory can mislead you. Plenty of people think past summers were 3 months of red hot weather.

But, you'd have to go some to believe that a pivotal event in your career was nothing like it actually was.

[Ben]

In the event that Swanson disposed of said ethics and mindset upon leaving the police force, to the extent that he willfully ignored that which he witnessed at the ID, then I would call into question Swanson's ability to undertake his duties earlier in his life.

I wouldn't, Fleets, especially not with regard to Anderson and Swanson, who we know didn't act on their assumption that the witness was withholding the true reason for his refusal to swear to the identification. They would only have been guilty of bad policing or unethical practices had they confronted the witness with their suspicions and demand that he stick to his original positive identification (which is something they would have been compelled to do had the witness stated outright that he was retracting his ID because the suspect was a fellow Jew).

And when it comes to 'risking prosecution', then you have a choice to make. Your personal ethics or your personal liberty

Well, if we take the "face value" approach, the witness can't have been too concerned about the "personal liberties" of Jack the Ripper's defenseless victims in being the deciding factor in enabling the murderer to walk free, and his "personal ethics" must have been all over the place - very much in favour of maintaining solidarity with fellow Jews, even if it means getting a mutilating serial killer off the hook. It's one thing to harbour such a warped mindset, but quite another to actually admit to it, and the latter cannot possibly have occurred because the police would not have tolerated it.

All the best,
Ben