Photos From Hell : The 125th Anniversary Convention Photo Thread

[Big Jon]

Not corrections Jon, no need. It would be unfair of me to insist as I haven't the evidence, yet, to support my opinion for that exact period.

Besides, it has no bearing on the point made/conclusions draw, which I completely agree with.

Monty

Neil, I'd honestly trust your opinions more than I would some peoples evidence.

[Chris G.]

Neil, I'd honestly trust your opinions more than I would some peoples evidence.

Ha ha.

[Monty]

Neil, I'd honestly trust your opinions more than I would some peoples evidence.

Ok Jon,

In your talk you stated -

"Was this line up good practice? In short no. By giving the witness only one suspect to pick out as Jack the Ripper the police were inadvertently telling the witness that this was Jack the Ripper and merely asking them to confirm the fact. Research has shown that witnesses automatically assume the guilty party will be in a line up."

We do not know for sure how this I D at the Seaside home was conducted. A line up? Doesn't seem like it to me as the word 'confronted' was used by Anderson ("the moment he was confronted with him"). This was a confrontation I. D.

Now this serves, primarily, as a means of unsettling a suspect rather than securing an identity. In other words this act was more to try and gain more information from the suspect, or even a confession, rather than ascertaining that the witness saw the suspect.

This can be very effective and was common for the period, so in terms of 'good practice", it depends on what you are referring to. Identification or ascertaining guilt/confession?

Monty

[Big Jon]

Ok Jon,

In your talk you stated -

"Was this line up good practice? In short no. By giving the witness only one suspect to pick out as Jack the Ripper the police were inadvertently telling the witness that this was Jack the Ripper and merely asking them to confirm the fact. Research has shown that witnesses automatically assume the guilty party will be in a line up."

We do not know for sure how this I D at the Seaside home was conducted. A line up? Doesn't seem like it to me as the word 'confronted' was used by Anderson ("the moment he was confronted with him"). This was a confrontation I. D.

Now this serves, primarily, as a means of unsettling a suspect rather than securing an identity. In other words this act was more to try and gain more information from the suspect, or even a confession, rather than ascertaining that the witness saw the suspect.

This can be very effective and was common for the period, so in terms of 'good practice", it depends on what you are referring to. Identification or ascertaining guilt/confession?

Monty

Thanks Neil. It hadn't occurred to me that the purpose may have been to unsettle the suspect, not to identify him. I can imagine though that it was common for the time.

I was referring to good practice in identification. That by presenting a witness with just one suspect and asking them if they were the person they saw, it isn't the best way to get an accurate identification.

But I agree if the purpose wasn't to get an identification then that could be quite effective.

Thanks for raising this mate.

[Monty]

Thanks Neil. It hadn't occurred to me that the purpose may have been to unsettle the suspect, not to identify him. I can imagine though that it was common for the time.

I was referring to good practice in identification. That by presenting a witness with just one suspect and asking them if they were the person they saw, it isn't the best way to get an accurate identification.

But I agree if the purpose wasn't to get an identification then that could be quite effective.

Thanks for raising this mate.

Absolutely agree with you Jon, which is why I said it didn't really matter and does not, by any means whatsoever, alter your valid point.

Monty

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Could I ask Jon in particular - what was the level of this type of knowledge in the 1880s-1890s?

The reliance on eye witness testimony at that time appears much greater than that of today IMO

What type of reaction would be looked for in the suspect in a confrontational ID, and would the observers be only policemen or possibly more learned psychiatrists or doctors?

Are there many detailed examples of ID's carried out at that period in history and the conclusions drawn from them?

[Big Jon]

Could I ask Jon in particular - what was the level of this type of knowledge in the 1880s-1890s?

The reliance on eye witness testimony at that time appears much greater than that of today IMO

What type of reaction would be looked for in the suspect in a confrontational ID, and would the observers be only policemen or possibly more learned psychiatrists or doctors?

Are there many detailed examples of ID's carried out at that period in history and the conclusions drawn from them?

Nemo,

Psychologists first began to question the reliability of memory in the early 1890's (but not specifically in regards to crime). Munsterberg (who I quoted from regarding the experiment in Berlin in the early 20th century) was one of the first to publish criticisms of eyewitness testimony in 1908. I know he started research towards the end of the 19th century. But would the police in the 1880's-90's have known about it? I don't think they would have any scientific knowledge - maybe some individual officers would have private reservations based on experience, but nothing more than that.


My knowledge of 1880's police procedure isn't that extensive - perhaps Neil can assist with the confrontational ID question?

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Thanks Jon

[Monty]

Could I ask Jon in particular - what was the level of this type of knowledge in the 1880s-1890s?

The reliance on eye witness testimony at that time appears much greater than that of today IMO

What type of reaction would be looked for in the suspect in a confrontational ID, and would the observers be only policemen or possibly more learned psychiatrists or doctors?

Are there many detailed examples of ID's carried out at that period in history and the conclusions drawn from them?

To follow on from Jons reply Paul,

They would look for signs of recognition, agitation, some sort of reaction which would indicate the suspect either knew the witness or recognised them.

As for other observers, it depends on the circumstance and the condition of the suspect.

Monty

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Thanks Neil

I think the police would be taking a lot upon themselves in the case of Kosminski, attempting to interpret the reaction of a man classed as insane

The reaction of the suspect would also appear to have no legal value whether the witness acknowledged the suspect or not

[Monty]

Hey Paul,

I need to be clear that the main reason is identification. Just that it may not be to sole reason.

Monty

[Chris G.]

Thanks Neil

I think the police would be taking a lot upon themselves in the case of Kosminski, attempting to interpret the reaction of a man classed as insane

The reaction of the suspect would also appear to have no legal value whether the witness acknowledged the suspect or not

Also for me the other big problem with Anderson's characterization of the way the identification at the seaside home went down is that it didn't take any allowance of the dynamics of the Jewish community. In other words, for example, the suspect and the man being asked to make the identification may have known each other but not because they had seen each other in Aldgate on the fateful night. The witness may have been unwilling to admit to that previous association, not wanting to complicate things further, so he just said that he didn't know the man.

[Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO]

Thanks Neil

I don't really understand what type of protocol was in place for the use of a line up type of ID or confrontational type

There is obviously a major difference between the two types of ID

Was it that in the case of Kosminski the police were satisfied he was the criminal and were not really concerned whether the ID was positive or not, them only seeking a reaction from the suspect, Kosminski, in being confronted by a man who in their eyes certainly saw him just prior to Eddowes' murder, and that Lawende stated he resembled the man was a bit of a bonus?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Neil

I don't really understand what type of protocol was in place for the use of a line up type of ID or confrontational type

There is obviously a major difference between the two types of ID

Was it that in the case of Kosminski the police were satisfied he was the criminal and were not really concerned whether the ID was positive or not, them only seeking a reaction from the suspect, Kosminski, in being confronted by a man who in their eyes certainly saw him just prior to Eddowes' murder, and that Lawende stated he resembled the man was a bit of a bonus?

If you are suggesting Lawende was the witness then why weren't the City police aware of this, why is is not recorded anywhere? and as Lawende was a city witness whyy did the Met purportedly carry out this ID.

Nothing in this adds up and why because it never happened. Anderson made it all up in his book and as to Swansons contribution i wont even go there !

[Monty]

Thanks Neil

I don't really understand what type of protocol was in place for the use of a line up type of ID or confrontational type

There is obviously a major difference between the two types of ID

Was it that in the case of Kosminski the police were satisfied he was the criminal and were not really concerned whether the ID was positive or not, them only seeking a reaction from the suspect, Kosminski, in being confronted by a man who in their eyes certainly saw him just prior to Eddowes' murder, and that Lawende stated he resembled the man was a bit of a bonus?

Hey Paul,

As Jon points out, confrontation identification is the least preferable for the very reason he states, it alludes to guilt on the part of the witness, which in the case of the seaside home it did.

To obtain a more sound I D, to aid a prosecution, a line up was preferable, so the question is why did this not occur?

My only conclusion, or conclusions are -

1) They knew prosecution was out of the question, possibly due to the suspects state of mind, so sort clarification for peace of mind.

Or

2) They were trying to initiate a confession.

The witness, whoever he was, refused to identify him which indicates he (the witness) was under the impression a trial may take place. If the suspect was of sound mind this is true, if not then there's no concern....unless the suspect had the potential to make a recovery.

There are many issues concerning this I D. And it is frustrating as we do not hold the full details. We could, and in fact have, go around in circles on this one.

I fear this thread shall be hijacked, so I do not wish to comment anymore on the matter, I do not wish to detract from the conference and Jons excellent talk.

Monty