Letīs talk about that identification again

[lynn cates]

additional evidence

Hello Rob. Thanks.

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

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]

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]

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

[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

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Were I a juror, I would agree with you, but there would be sufficient doubt to not convict.

I'm scratching my head here because I really don't understand how Swanson's words....."suspect was identified"...."murdered would have hanged".....can be taken to mean anything other than Swanson believed this man was the murderer....unless we're looking to discredit the Kosminski suspect.

[lynn cates]

piece work

Hello Edward. Thanks.

Well, maybe not if 2 or 3 stories have inadvertently been pieced together.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Lynn
Do you actually mean to suggest 'muddled together' rather than pieced together

[Lechmere]

Ron
Fleetwood is correct. Within the text there is no room for doubt over the identification or the consequences from that had the witness stepped forward.

[Jonathan H]

Well, of course because that certainty is exactly hos Anderson psoke and wrote.

Anderson writes to the Jews to mollify them that there was no doubt the murderer was a Jew, but not because he was a Jew.

The evdience?

He had been positively identified, no ifs or buts -- like the Marginakia -- and he was driven insane by [he alludes to] masturbation.

I think Swanson accepted all this, but his onyl source was Anderson.

How did Macnaghten know what they did not?

[Mr Lucky]

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."
RH

I was assessing the whole Seaside home ID in four lines including a question. I didn't put that in speech marks for a reason. Don't change what I've written, and then accuse me of 'putting words in the mouth of the witness '.

These are the words of Anderson and Swanson, not mine -

‘I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.’ - Sir Robert Anderson

'he refused to give evidence against him'

'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.’ - D.S. Swanson

'his evidence would convict the suspect'

Evidence is given in court, evidence can only be given in court, anywhere else it is just a statement.

[lynn cates]

language game

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"Do you actually mean to suggest 'muddled together' rather than pieced together?"

Umm, denotationally the same; connotationally, a no-no.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Were I a juror, I would agree with you, but there would be sufficient doubt to not convict.

I'm scratching my head here because I really don't understand how Swanson's words....."suspect was identified"...."murdered would have hanged".....can be taken to mean anything other than Swanson believed this man was the murderer....unless we're looking to discredit the Kosminski suspect.

Swanson's choice of words is not difficult to follow. He could hardly write "suspect would have hanged", you must be guilty, therefore you are by defacto the murderer, to hang.

Swanson is not calling the suspect a murderer, he is saying the evidence would convict the suspect thereby changing him into "murderer", and subsequently, hang.

However relevant the marginalia notes are, are entirely dependent on when this ID took place. Seeing as how the date is up in the air, with a best possible estimate of July 1890, 20 months after Kelly's murder, what possible evidence could the police have at this late date to provide a solid case?

Lawende's own admission that he could not identify the man again makes any subsequent contribution from him in an ID 20 months later, distinctly dubious from a legal perspective.

There's a great deal of wishful thinking going on here.

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

If some rabbi actually advised the witness not to testify, then that rabbi must have been willing to somehow adjudicate the case with a rabbinical court. I think there would be some record of that.

Aside from the fact that I doubt very much a rabbi would be willing to take this responsibility on, I've never heard the barest whisper of anyone within the Jewish community at the time discussing how they are going to manage JTR. It could be a record of convincing his family to civilly commit him, somehow, or notes of an investigation that satisfied the rabbinical court (three rabbis) that the man was already secured in an institution somehow, but a rabbi isn't going to say "Don't testify, just let him run the streets to keep killing."

I think the "perfect witness who won't testify," is largely myth. There may be something behind it, like a very imperfect witness the police wished were better. But I find the idea that a Jew would simply refuse to testify, and leave it at that, implausible at best.

[Damaso Marte]

The Jew could have been acting for reasons of ethnic or group solidarity: religion could have had absolutely nothing to do with it.