Letīs talk about that identification again

[robhouse]

I think that he was identified initially, and then the witness retracted... probably because he was not 100% certain of his identification, and didn't want the man to hang based on his vague memory. I also think he was well aware of the potential problems that his testimony would present for the Jews in the East End and probably mentioned this at the time.

RH

[Fisherman]

Hi Rob
I know you think Kos was a prime suspect for the ripper. So whats your opinion-why wasn't he subpoened if it was a positive ID?

Itīs not only Rob that thinks so - "Kosminski" WAS considered a prime suspect. On what grounds, however - thatīs where it gets awfully shaky.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One must hasten to add that the chance of course is there that Anderson "forgot" to mention a retraction ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

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

Hi Rob
I know you think Kos was a prime suspect for the ripper. So whats your opinion-why wasn't he subpoened if it was a positive ID?

[Fisherman]

As long as it stood, it would be a positive identification - but as soon it was detracted, it would be a failed one.

Think of it like this: A man sees a guy hit somebody over the head with a stick. The guy with the stick has only half a right ear.

A witness is called to identify a suspect. The suspect is very much alike the perpetrator, and the witness says "Yes, that is the man". Then he notices that this man has a whole right ear, and of course detracts his pointing out of the man.

A detracted identification is a failed one. It is another matter that sometimes people detract their identifications because they have been informed that they will become a head shorter if they stand by their ID:s, but technically, the outcome is the same: identification failed.

The best,
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

[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, Iīm 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 Andersonīs 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

[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

[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

[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 Andersonīs 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 canīt 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, thatīs 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 wonīt make a iot of difference - you are still not identifying him until you say "Thatīs 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 canīt 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 thatīs 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 thatīs a very different thing from claiming that Anderson did say the exact phrase.

I hope Iīve been clear - and I hope I havenīt missed anything!

All the best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.