Letīs 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.

[robhouse]

In endeavouring to make sense of these remarks, the meaning is invariably altered.

This is exactly what you do in your analysis following:

For example Anderson wrote:
‘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.’
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.

Anderson does not say that the identification was "very positive". He merely said that the witness "unhesitatingly identified the suspect." That is not the same as a "very positive" identification. 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."

The annotations are no less clear and unequivocal in how they describe the events than ‘The Lighter Side Of My Official Life’.

[...]
• The witness would not give evidence as he did not want the murderer to hang due to his being a Jew – no room for doubt as to the reason the witness would not give evidence.

Here again, you are putting a spin on what was said... but this is not what Swanson said. Swanson said that the witness refused to testify "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." Note the construction of this sentence... "because A and B and C." You have interpreted this as "because B and C due to A"--- which is not what Swanson said.

An analogy... say if I say, "I decided to buy this sports car because it is red and it is fast and has a powerful engine." You cannot interpret this to mean.. "I decided to buy it because it is fast due to its being red."

In short... you have interpreted this as "The witness would not give evidence as he did not want the murderer to hang due to his being a Jew." Whereas, Swanson might well have meant that there were two different reasons... because the man was Jewish, and also because the man did not want this man to be executed on account of his evidence... which may imply that the man was not certain. Indeed, as Ben says, it seems entirely likely that the witness may not have been certain of his identification, given the conditions, the darkness, the fleeting glimpse of the person etc. And given that, if it was Lawende, he stated at the time that he doubted he would recognize the man if he saw him again..

RH

[Lechmere]

Ben
Many people try to make sense of the remarks made in Anderson’s ‘The Lighter Side Of My Official Life’ and the annotations found in the copy of that book held by the Swanson family regarding the identification of a suspect.
In endeavouring to make sense of these remarks, the meaning is invariably altered.

For example Anderson wrote:
‘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.’
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.
The refusal of the witness to give evidence against the murderer was also blatant. It would be inappropriate to label the culprit as a mere suspect in Anderson’s eyes.
The language Anderson uses is clear, concise and leaves virtually no room for manoeuvre.

The annotations add this, effectively following on from Anderson’s last sentence:
'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.'
adding
'& after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London.'
and adding again
'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.'
On suspects return to his brothers house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards – Kosminski was the suspect

The annotations are no less clear and unequivocal in how they describe the events than ‘The Lighter Side Of My Official Life’.

• The suspect was a Jew – for sure – no room for doubt.
• The witness’s evidence would convict the suspect – for sure – no room for doubt. There isn’t some other evidence that would convict. The witness’s evidence would be the thing that would result in a conviction.
• The witness would not give evidence as he did not want the murderer to hang due to his being a Jew – no room for doubt as to the reason the witness would not give evidence.
• The suspect (or murderer) also knew that he had been identified. Again no room for doubt. The positive nature of the identification was known to all parties present.

Within the text there is no room for your view that it was just assumed the witness didn’t want to testify because of the Jewish angle. You have absolutely nothing on which to base your assertion that the witness didn’t want to testify because he was not actually sure about the suspect’s identity. That is just a pure invention on your part. Your invention flatly contradicts the plain statement made in the annotations.

If we take it that DS Swanson wrote the annotations then clearly the views expressed were his serious views. His recollection of events.
His recollection may have been faulty. Many things could have caused his recollection to be faulty.
The passage of time perhaps.
The onset of some form of age related incapacity perhaps, such as Parkinson’s Disease, although this opens up a whole new area of discussion.
Perhaps he was muddled up at the time of the investigation. As he had to handle all the incoming and outgoing paperwork, he would have almost certainly been suffering from information overload, where events and circumstances got muddled and conflated.
None of this suggests he was a bad policeman.

If DS Swanson wrote the annotations and was of perfectly sound mind when he wrote them, then if he did ‘willfully misrepresented proceedings in order to convince himself that they had the right man’ based on his own prejudices that would stand in the way of the proper detection of criminality and this would surely have made him a negligent and inefficient policeman.
In other words if DS Swanson based his judgement on his own unsubstantiated and inferred reason for the witness’s refusal to testify rather than the witness’s overt and stated reason, then he was allowing his own prejudices to rule his head. This would not make for a good policeman.

I would suggest that most of the police would have had all sorts of prejudices as they were men of their age.
It also seems likely that Anderson looked for a potential culprit to fit his preconceived notions of what sort of person the Ripper would be. But that would explain why Anderson would have put a potential type of culprit in the frame. His preconceived notions, his prejudices in other words, might also colour his remembrances of the case, and assist in the conflation of different events, suspects and happenings.

I think that Anderson’s prejudices were the mother of the invention that case had been solved.
DS Swanson was an accomplice through loyalty and subservience to his chief.
No doubt their views grew and were reinforced by their shared experiences and time spent together at the Yard.

I think that is the most likely explanation for the opinions expressed in ‘The Lighter Side Of My Official Life’ and the annotations.

The other explanation for annotations is that they are not in fact by DS Swanson, and there remains a big question mark in my head over their authenticity. However it has been shown that a sensible and calm discussion about this subject is not possible.

That is why I differ from Fleetwood.
We both take the annotations at face value and that you cannot add to them to make them make sense. They are what they are.
Most try to add different things – changing what Swanson or Anderson said by suggesting what they really meant to say was something different.
Unlike Fleetwood I think the annotations are of no help in establishing that the police had any real idea who committed the crimes. They confirm that the police were in a muddle.
However, one explanation for the muddle in the annotations is that they are fake.

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

It is your assumption that it could only have been an assumption on Swanson's part.

Indeed it is, but there is no rational alternative. Whoever the witness was, there was no realistic possibility of him admitting that the suspect's fellow Jewishness was the reason for his refusal to swear to an identification he had "unhesitatingly" made. That makes no sense whatsoever. He'd be needlessly incriminating himself, but more importantly, it would have landed him in extremely hot water with the police. He'd have been compelled to testify. Since none of this happened, the witness cannot have provided this reason for his refusal to testify. It wouldn't have washed.

Hence, we're left with the inescapable conclusion that the police attributed his failure to swear to the identification to the fact that the suspect was a fellow Jew. Perhaps the witness cooled off in the wake of the revelation that the suspect was a Jew, or perhaps the police exerted too much pressure on the witness initially. Either way, it could only have been an impression formed.

The idea that the witness immediately identified the suspect so long after the initial sighting is completely ludicrous, in any case. Doubly so if the witness was Lawende, who doubted the likelihood that he would recognise the "red neckerchief" man again.

None of this makes Swanson a bad policeman. He wasn't doing any "policing" when he wrote some marginal notes in a personal copy of a former boss' private memoirs.

Saying that the only sources we have for this ID really meant something else is a bit of a non starter. However I take a different conclusion from you from this particular episode.

Which is, Lechmere...?

Dismiss the source altogether and declare it a fake?

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

Yes, letīs!

Fisherman

Phew!

[Fisherman]

Yes, letīs!

Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Itīs not the GHH I am speaking of - itīs the unwillingness to take the phrase "semi-anonymous" on board.

The best,
Fisherman

I did take it on board. The only people who would have been interested in the identity of the author would have been Hutt's City Police colleagues. 'GHH' would have been sufficient. It was a minor point. It's not a big deal. Let's move on.

[Fisherman]

Because it's a marginalia thread. I therefore used Swanson's 'DSS' to show that Hutt's 'GHH' was not that remarkable. I haven't claimed it to be a 'big deal'. That phrase is your own.

Itīs not the GHH I am speaking of - itīs the unwillingness to take the phrase "semi-anonymous" on board.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

... and not by those who did NOT know him. So to some, he would not be anonymous, whereas to others, he would. Semi-anonymous. Half-anonymous.

Whatīs the big deal here? Once you avoid to disclose your real and full name, you will gain an amount of anonymity. The more you deviate from your real and full name, the larger that part of anonymity will be.

Why are we discussing this at all?

The best,
Fisherman

Because it's a marginalia thread. I therefore used Swanson's 'DSS' to show that Hutt's 'GHH' was not that remarkable. I haven't claimed it to be a 'big deal'. That phrase is your own.

[Lechmere]

Fleetwood
I agree with you on this - and by extrapolation that is how I approach all statements.
Saying that the only sources we have for this ID really meant something else is a bit of a non starter. However I take a different conclusion from you from this particular episode.

Fisherman
If someone writes a letter to the press and signs it off by just using their initials then you and I and the rest of the world know it is semi anonymous. That is obvious and hardly needs to be commented on, except out of an inveterate adversarial attitude where it is reflexively argued that the sea is red, the sky yellow and the sun is a crispy creme Lemon meringue donut.

It also shouldn't need to be pointed out that if I were to sign off a private note in one of my books from my personal library using my initials then this is a little different to me writing a letter for public publication in the press and just signing it off with my initials.
It is also a little different for an internal report to be signed off using initials as it is obvious who those initials belong to and it is a form of short hand.

These side bar discussions are indeed an unnecessary diversion but are a consequence of jobbist canteen culture.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But however "unequivocal" he may have been, it can only have been an assumption that the witness refused to testify because he "was a Jew and did not want it on his conscience". The witness was hardly going to admit that this was the reason for his refusal to swear to the identification, as he knew full well that it wouldn't wash with the police.

Hello Ben,

I think the above is a good example of where and why I disagree with most posters on this thread.

It is your assumption that it could only have been an assumption on Swanson's part.

I'm taking Swanson at face value.

To not take Swanson at face value, means that he was not a particularly good policeman, e.g. he made groundless assumptions such as the one you suggest.

Would he really have turned an 'unsure' into 'Jewish - therefore won't give evidence'? If that is the case, then Swanson must have been a rank bad policeman who couldn't have cared less about the evidence and actual events.

[Fisherman]

'DSS' is Donald Sutherland Swanson, but 'GHH' is 'semi-anonymous'?
Hutt was identifiable as the sender of the letter by those who knew him.

... and not by those who did NOT know him. So to some, he would not be anonymous, whereas to others, he would. Semi-anonymous. Half-anonymous.

Whatīs the big deal here? Once you avoid to disclose your real and full name, you will gain an amount of anonymity. The more you deviate from your real and full name, the larger that part of anonymity will be.

Why are we discussing this at all?

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Three Initials

The ‘final official report’ referred to is the Macnaghten Memorandum I think, which should be taken as more indicative of police attitudes towards the case than a semi anonymous letter to the press from a PC.

'DSS' is Donald Sutherland Swanson, but 'GHH' is 'semi-anonymous'?
Hutt was identifiable as the sender of the letter by those who knew him.

[Jonathan H]

Shyt?!

How weird!

Thanks Fisherman for trying to rectify a mistaken impression I left.

As you say, I was quoting a relatively new Sims' source, found by the brilliant investigator Chris Phillips.

It's here, just next door in Notable Persons:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=246917#post246917

What I meant was that Anderson did receive criticism I think from his successor as Assistant Commissioner (CID), Macnaghten, who did it via his usual mouthpiece about the Ripper, Sims.

But I agree with Monty too.

Mac was misleading Tatcho.

There was no 'Home Office Report' about Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog.

It's a lie.

Sims had been told by Macnaghten about the content of the 'Aberconway' version where 'Dr. Druitt' is the paramount suspect according to the 'awful glut' thesis.

This was the draft or rewrite of an official document held in the Yard's archives, and which nobody seems to have known about until 1966.

In neither version does it say that the mad English dcotor had been incarcerated in an asylum because he was diagnosed as a homicidal maniac (yet they let him out?!)

That's another lie.

Sims does not know that because Mac has, I think, totally misled him -- again.

But the enraged English Jews might be about to come and see Mac in his official capacity, or see the Home Sec. or the Commissioner might be about to, or they might see Mac for clarification, all of the above, and so via Sims he revealed that there was a 'final' official report.

I agree -- it is not as Macnaghten would have argued 'police' opinion.

It was all just cobbled together by him to defend the Yard against the twin crises of Cutbush and Druitt (if that story leaked out of Dorset again) and yet neither happened.

But the 'official' version in the Yard's files would suit the sitation in 1910 better than 'Aberconway', if the Jews, or the Home Sec. made a real big fuss, because it could show them that while this 'Kosminski' was a minor suspect he, along with Druitt and Ostrog, might have been the murderer and therefore Anderson was not wrong to say he could have been, just clumsy and crude not to have also mentioned that he was one of three 'any one of whom' might have been Jack.

I hope that's clear ...?

[Fisherman]

I know you are, Monty.

Iīll do my best. See you out there.

Fisherman