Letīs talk about that identification again

[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

[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]

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

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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]

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

That could of course be. It is the opportunity that opens itself up when we read Anderson: an unhesitating identification, followed by an unwillingness to stand by it. Sounds much like a retraction to my ears.

If, however, the retraction was grounded on an unwillingness to convict a fellow Jew or on something else, we cannot tell. A warning-sign is called for when it comes to Anderson if the scenario we are discussing is the correct one. For obviously, Anderson ommitts to mention that in the end, the identification was a failed one. If - and thatīs just if - the rest of the guesswork holds true, then Sir Robert seems eager to tell the pros but not the cons...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

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

I pretty much agree.

so was anderson full of sh!t or what? I mean he (and swanson) are pretty clear that the witness IDed the suspect but would not swear to it because they were both Jewish. Not because he retracted, or was unsure, or didn't want a riot against the jews.

So they either embellished the extent of how positive the ID was at the time or
The ID was that positive and evrything they wrote was accurate (including the reason the witness refused to swear to it) yet failed to act on it in a way that one would expect if they really thought they had there man.

I would opt for the former, due to faulty memory, wishful thinking and ego perhaps. I find it hard to believe that if it was that latter they would not act on it.

[robhouse]

I tend to think that if the identification had not been a failed one, then Kozminski would have been tried and probably convicted of the murders. I also believe that the police had other evidence against Kozminski, but that it was insufficient to prove guilt, without the addition of a witness identification.

RH

[Fisherman]

I tend to think that if the identification had not been a failed one, then Kozminski would have been tried and probably convicted of the murders. I also believe that the police had other evidence against Kozminski, but that it was insufficient to prove guilt, without the addition of a witness identification.
RH

It leaves too many questions unanswered to my mind. And I am having very serious trouble seeing Aaron Kosminski take the stand, given his condition in 1891. He was very clearly not a man to hold accountable for any criminal act, no matter what.
You are making as good a case as can be made for Kosminski, though. Itīs just that I donīt think it is enough by any stretch. To me, the best bet is that they had no idea - none at all.

Thanks for the exchange, Rob!

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

Well, let me take that back a bit... he would not have been tried and convicted. He would have been deemed unfit for trial and locked away in Broadmoor. My apologies... this is what Anderson said in any case.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Well, that takes him a bit closer; it was final destination Leavesden for Aaron, of course. Not Broadmoor, which one may have expected.
And clearly Anderson confessed to believing in a Jew having been put away in an asylum, and being Jack the Ripper to boot.

MacNaghten, Smith, Abberline, Reid etcetera disagreed, though. And me ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Rob
You claim that you ‘have not added anything to their statements’ yet you keep making statements such as:
‘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.’

There is absolutely nothing within Anderson’s book nor the annotations that could lead you to suppose that the witness was not 100% certain.

I have said that Anderson and the annotator made positive statements about the identification.
I did not suggest that either used the exact term ‘positive identification’ but that it was a positive identification is implicit within the expressions they did use...

Positive identification statement by Anderson:
unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him

Positive identification statements in annotations:
his evidence would convict the suspect
witness would be the means of murderer being hanged
after this identification which suspect knew
After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home
he knew he was identified.

They most certainly did not refer to the identification in a manner which allows for an interpretation that the witness was not sure about it. There is not the slightest hint in the text that there was the merest scintilla of doubt on the part of the witness.

The only reason given for the witness refusing to give evidence was because the suspect was also a Jew.
More than this, this is explicitly given as the reason. There is no need to hunt around for a phantom reason for the witness refusing to give evidence.
And note, the witness refused to give evidence. It was not a case of his evidence being of no use because he was vague about it.

The annotations and Anderson’s original text are not disjointed. The annotations flow logically on from the text. The annotations are not written as stand alone statements.
The annotations expand upon the original printed text, literally continuing the sentence.
The only way to read them is as follows, with Anderson in red and the annotations in blue.

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, 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 & after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London.
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.

The annotations start with the word ‘because’.
Because of what? The Wonderful Wizard of Oz?
It is obvious that the ‘because’ refers to the refusal of the witness to give evidence. It explains why the witness refused to give evidence.

‘he refused to give evidence against him, because the suspect was also a Jew’.

It could not be clearer, but the annotator expands further:
‘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.’

You are basing your suspect theory very largely upon the claim made in the annotations.
That being the case you can hardly tear them up and say that they are wrong and in fact the real reason the identification did not result in a prosecution was that the witness was not after all so sure about where it was the culprit or not – when the text blatantly tells us that the reason it was dropped was because the witness was a Jew, the culprit was a Jew and for that reason the witness didn’t want to give evidence as he didn’t want that on his mind when the culprit was hung, which would have been the outcome.
And therefore the witness refused. Refused - not confused.

If you ask why the witness was not subpoenaed, then my answer is that the event did not happen as described – it is all a muddle (if not a hoax) – after-the-event cobbled-together stories that those writing about it did not personally experience.
Why would Anderson and the annotator even suggest such an unlikely scenario?
Probably because it was not such an unlikely scenario.
It was not described as an official properly regulated identification and even if it was if the witness .

[Abby Normal]

I tend to think that if the identification had not been a failed one, then Kozminski would have been tried and probably convicted of the murders. I also believe that the police had other evidence against Kozminski, but that it was insufficient to prove guilt, without the addition of a witness identification.

RH

Got it and that makes perfect sense also.

[Cogidubnus]

Got it and that makes perfect sense also.

Agreed...makes more sense to me than anything else anyhow...

Dave

[Jonathan H]

Makes ... sense?

A successful identification unknown -- the entire episode is unknown -- to the head of the City Police and unknown to the second in command at CID.

A second in command who arguably knows more accurate data about the same suspect.

A slam dunk event at a police hospital outside of London and despite it being extraordinary and which never leaked?

Is that really likely, or even plausible?

One of the reasons that Farson, Cullen, Rumbelow (in 1975), Fido and Nelson thought/think that this must be an event and a susepct from 1888 is that this is the way Anderson writes about the Ripper case in 1910 -- eg. all over by early 1889.

It is one of the reasons Cohen remains in play for some theorists.

To his discredit as a potentially reliable source Swanson does not contradict this implied and much truncated timeline.