Let´s talk about that identification again

[Lechmere]

Lynn
'Piece together' implies the pieces fit together snugly like a jigsaw, to create a harmonious picture.
Whereas I rather think you mean upwards of three different suspects, identifications and stories were jumbled together to create a Frankenstein's monster of a Seaside Home ID.

[robhouse]

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 -



'he refused to give evidence against him'



'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.

Did you even read what I wrote? I never denied that his evidence would convict, nor that he refused to give evidence.

RH

[Jonathan H]

If a witness really pointed at a suspect and said that's the man, and the administrative and operational heads of the police agreed, it would be a very famous moment.

No matter what you did to swear everybody to secrecy, it would leak.

Like a sieve.

Everybody would know.

Actually from 1910, when the story first appears -- at least with a Jewish witness and a Jewish suspect -- it was not a secret.

Anderson did not treat it as a secret he was finally revealing.

This strongly suggests to me, and others, that the Seaside Home tale is not literally true because other significant police (Smith, Macnaghten, et al) would have also, inevitably, known about it.

Plus the tale, especially Swanson's version, is so self-servingly satisfying: eg. others are blamed, we were triumphant and efficient, and the suspect was dead anyhow so the lack of co-operation by the witness was nullified anyhow. The murderer would never have made it to trial -- which provides a satisfying ending.

An ending we can see is untrue.

Behind this tale, which I think originates entirely with Anderson, is Lawende [perhaps] affirming to Grant in 1895, but it went nowhere at the same moment that Anderson was briefed about the Polish Jew, and then told his theory to Major Griffiths.

After fifteen years Lawende's yes to a suspect who could not be charged merged with the Polish Jewish suspect in Anderson's fading memory.

What? This couldn't have happened?

Anderson could not mix it all up that badly?

In 1908 Anderson gave an interview in which he confused a Liberal Home Sec. with a Tory one -- confused which one had put him under pressure in 1888, which sounds impossible (he confused the pipes from the Kelly and McKenzie murders too).

Self-servingly, a Tory himself, Anderson unfairly, mean-spiritedly blamed a Liberal, the party he regarded as letting the nation down with it's socialistic policies.

That Liberal, Harcourt, may have stuck in his memory about the Ripper not just because he had been Home Sec. in 1886, but because he was Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequor in 1895, the no. 2 spot in the Liberal party at the same time that Anderson may have first learned about 'Kosminski' and a witness said yes to a prime suspect.

[lynn cates]

crazy quilt

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"'Piece together' implies the pieces fit together snugly like a jigsaw, to create a harmonious picture."

Umm, I was thinking more along the lines of the "crazy quilt."

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Crazy kelts belong in asylums, Lynn!

Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Did you even read what I wrote? I never denied that his evidence would convict, nor that he refused to give evidence.

RH

Yes, I read what you wrote

I wouldn't be able to object to you misquoting me if I hadn't read it.

[Abby Normal]

We´re drifting somewhat on the thread now. Does anybody have something to say about whether the same police force in a matter of a year or less, would subject a fifty year old british sailor to an identification with the hope of having it work out - after the purportedly same witness had already positively ID:d a 24 or 25 year old Jew for the same offence?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi fish
Because at the time it was not really a positive ID. Witness probably said something along the lines of "it could be him, but I can't swear to it". Over the years it became a much more positive id than it actually was.

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
Because at the time it was not really a positive ID. Witness probably said something along the lines of "it could be him, but I can't swear to it". Over the years it became a much more positive id than it actually was.

I still say, Abby, that if the witness acknowledged that the young Jew he had in front of him could have been the person he had seen close to a crime scene, then Sadler would NOT have ben a viable bid for that witness. The two men would not have been interchangable, logically reasoning. They would have been miles apart.

Otherwise, yes, there is every possibility that the ID business is an example of gliding descriptions, sliding memories and a wish to impress.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

cagey individuals

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Provided, of course, they are safely caged there.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Abbey
The sources we have for the ID leave no room for a vague, possible, maybe, maybe not identification.

[Abby Normal]

Abbey
The sources we have for the ID leave no room for a vague, possible, maybe, maybe not identification.

Hi Lech
The sources, in my opinion, in regards to how positive the ID was when it actually took place, may be unreliable. I am suggesting It became more positive in Andersons and Swansons minds as the years when on and when they wrote about it.

Which would explain why Swanson messed up information about AK and lost track of him-because he was a suspect, one of many at the time , that simply did not pan out.

I just cant beleive that if Anderson (and perhaps Swanson) really thought he was the ripper at about the time of the ID that they would not pursue it, charge him, SOMETHING, least of all lose track of him!

But I do agree with you on one point-if they really did think he was the ripper at the time of the ID and let him slip away, than yes that would be incompetent, negligent-stupid, whatever you want to call it-a really BIG mistake.

[Fisherman]

True enough, Edward! Unhesitatingly and immediately ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Obviously, the problem with Schwartz is that we know that Swanson took care to point out that somebody else that BS man may well have been the killer; there was a window of time afforded that would have more than sufficed.

I see Swanson doing no more than exercising a healthy degree professional caution in this instance, Fish. Because there was no absolute certainty that Schwartz had witnessed the initial stage of the attack that resulted in Stride’s death, the door was left open for other possibilities. It seems to be fairly obvious, however, that Schwartz was thought to have seen something of significance.

So no, Schwartz does not fit either. Since we must probably rule Lawende out, he fits better - but not good enough.

I disagree, Fish. For me Schwartz is the only witness who dovetails with the remarks issued by Anderson and Swanson, though I very much doubt that he sighted Jack the Ripper.

Because, perhaps, the witness could for some reason not be brought to London. If the witness was recovering from some illness or traume, then maybe it was easier to bring the suspect to Brighton (if Brighton it was...)

That’s a possibility, Fish, but I still incline to the view that the Brighton Seaside Home was used to preserve the secrecy of what certainly appears to have been a covert operation.

Maybe he did remember very much more than he lead on, Garry. Maybe his memory was sharper than a razor; I don´t think we have any evidence to any problems with his memory.

Oh, I’m not implying that there was anything intrinsically wrong with Lawende’s memory, Fish. The reality, however, is that memory is far more frail, far more abstract than many people realize. In order for memories to be created at all the subject must be in a state of arousal. Only then can a stimulus be encoded and stored for long-term retrieval. The problem with many eyewitnesses – even those with relatively good memory functionality – is that they experience something which at the time is of seemingly little significance whilst in a state of moderate or low arousal. Only later when the importance of the event is recognized do they then attempt to recollect the relevant details, but since these have been poorly encoded they often prove elusive. Such is the way in which memory operates, however, that the subject unconsciously fills in the blanks with assumed information, thereby creating false memories. For this reason I very much doubt that Lawende’s description of Eddowes’ Church Passage companion was especially accurate. How could it have been when Lawende expressed doubt that he would recognize the man again? If he couldn’t remember him, how could he accurately describe him?

And what’s true of Lawende is true of most of the witnesses who emerged during the Ripper manhunt, the one possible exception being Schwartz who witnessed the fracas involving Stride and Broad Shoulders whilst in a fearful state and thus in a condition of heightened arousal.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"I see Swanson doing no more than exercising a healthy degree professional caution in this instance, Fish. Because there was no absolute certainty that Schwartz had witnessed the initial stage of the attack that resulted in Stride’s death, the door was left open for other possibilities. It seems to be fairly obvious, however, that Schwartz was thought to have seen something of significance."

I would say POTENTIAL significance, Garry. Not something that would hold up in a court of law, as you will appreciate.

"I disagree, Fish. For me Schwartz is the only witness who dovetails with the remarks issued by Anderson and Swanson, though I very much doubt that he sighted Jack the Ripper."

I can´t offer somebody better, that´s for sure, Garry - but I have the distinct feeling that I need to do so to live up to Anderson and Swansons given description of the built-in qualities of the witness...

"That’s a possibility, Fish, but I still incline to the view that the Brighton Seaside Home was used to preserve the secrecy of what certainly appears to have been a covert operation."

Look at a map, Garry. Croydon, Purley, Horley, Copthorne, Crawley, Pease Pottage, Bolney, Sayers Common, Hurstpierpoint and Poynings are passed along the way to Brighton. If the police could not shake the press off along that road, why would they shake them off in Brighton...? And what better place to perform the ID than Copthorne!
I´m not saying that you are wrong, since I can´t be sure. So we will have to opt for a difference in mind here.

"I’m not implying that there was anything intrinsically wrong with Lawende’s memory, Fish. The reality, however, is that memory is far more frail, far more abstract than many people realize. In order for memories to be created at all the subject must be in a state of arousal. Only then can a stimulus be encoded and stored for long-term retrieval. The problem with many eyewitnesses – even those with relatively good memory functionality – is that they experience something which at the time is of seemingly little significance whilst in a state of moderate or low arousal. Only later when the importance of the event is recognized do they then attempt to recollect the relevant details, but since these have been poorly encoded they often prove elusive. Such is the way in which memory operates, however, that the subject unconsciously fills in the blanks with assumed information, thereby creating false memories. For this reason I very much doubt that Lawende’s description of Eddowes’ Church Passage companion was especially accurate. How could it have been when Lawende expressed doubt that he would recognize the man again? If he couldn’t remember him, how could he accurately describe him?"

All very true, Garry! Schwartz arguably - and I have argued this before - did go through a scenario that would have sharpened his observation. He would in all probability be a better witness than Lawende. I just wanted to point out that we don´t even NEED any lacklustre memory on Lawendes behalf, since he ruled himself out by saying that he would probably not be able to make his man. After that, his true powers of observation do not enter the equation, whatever they were! So as far as the choice between Lawende and Schwartz goes, if I was doing the ID, I´d go with Schwartz ten times out of ten.

I just don´t think he answers the points he needs to answer just the same. Sorry about that!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Abbey
If you agree that Swanson showed incompetence in failing to be kept properly informed about Kosminsky's future (and let's presume we are talking about Aaron) and if you recognise the difficulties there are in reconciling the so-called Seaside Home ID with any rational or explicable course of action (by following the text and not adding or subtracting from it) then What of value are we left with from Anderson's writings and the marginalia?
Precious little with which to claim that they were pointing to a realistic no. 1 official suspect I would submit.