Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Points Of Law And Sir Robt. Anderson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Points Of Law And Sir Robt. Anderson

    I'm not sure whether this has been mentioned here or not before...it probably hasn't but its one of those bits of information that you get a feeling that has....

    In any event, Neil Bell mentioned this on Casebook yesterday and I thought it was worth repeating for some discussion..

    From Neil:


    Apologies if this has been previously mentioned.

    A witness summons may be granted by a Justice on an oath or affirmation that the person concerned is likely to give material evidence and will not voluntarily appear to be examined as a witness in the case (SJ Act, 1848 s.7 and Indictable Offences Act 1848 s.16)

    Failing to attend or refuses to answer questions may result in a prison comittal up to 7 days, as per the SJ Act 1848 s.7 & IO Act 1848 s.16.

    This is in relation to Anderson's witness.

    Basically the refusal to give evidence is tosh.

    Monty
    *************************

    My reply to that is :



    Dear Neil:

    I suspect one fairly important question surfaces in light of this ( I'm guessing,not being a citizen of the UK, that these two points of law would cover at least the part of England where Anderson's suspect was housed at the time).

    Mine would be how could Anderson.... or the police personnel in charge or in attendance at that identification, since there isn't definite evidence that SRA was in attendance, ...not know those two points in law? They'd been in effect for at least four decades by the time of the late 1888 or early 1890's identification.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

  • #2
    A minor addition to my previous post and just my interpretation at the moment of the importance of what Neil provided:

    When the detained individual was brought forward for the witness to examine, if the witness had merely said "No, I do not remember this man..." and without inquiring about the suspect's ethnicity , then where does the attending policeman ( Not necessarily SRA because he may not have been there in the first place ) come up with this idea that the witness wouldn't put a Jewish neck in a noose by a simple "No" answer without any prior question(s) on the part of the witness ?

    If the witness DID make the remark that he wouldn't be responsible for putting a kinsman's neck in the noose before saying "No...", then again...why didn't the attending official ( again not necessarily SRA) refer to this regulation ?

    Failing to attend or refuses to answer questions may result in a prison comittal up to 7 days, as per the SJ Act 1848 s.7 & IO Act 1848 s.16.


    Anderson, in his later writings, states that the witness declined to identify the detained individual because the witness feared it would mean putting the man's head in the noose as if Anderson or any attending police official was unaware of the regulation which would have essentially demanded that the witness speak out.

    If the witness DID make a remark in regard to the ethnicity of the suspect BEFORE he said "Yes, he's the man" or "No"....either way.... to my thinking it would have given the police a very justifiable cause to utilize the aforementioned regulation at that point or later on.

    Why?

    Because if the Jewish witness asked the police whether the suspect ( whom I would think he would have known was Jewish by sight...) was a Jew, red flags would go up instantly in the heads of the police because there would have been no reason for a question like that UNLESS the condition of the Jewish-ness of a suspect was THAT important to this witness. It would be at that point that the police could easily have interrogated the witness further and frankly, they should have...

    Does anyone follow me here ?
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

    Comment


    • #3
      How,

      Regarding your initial question, exactly my point. Especially when you consider SRA was a Barrister.

      If what happened, happend as Anderson (and Swanson for that matter) states, then this ID was exceptional due to the fact procedure and law went out of the window.

      The only 'way around it' I can think of was that the suspect was not under arrest and the witness identification was not sufficient in itself to persue a conviction.

      If thats the case, why not say it?

      Monty

      Comment


      • #4
        For Interested Readers

        For interested readers here are the two pieces of 1848 legislation being discussed. As you can see they were slightly amended in 1925 -




        Comment


        • #5
          How,

          Regarding your second post...Im trying to follow but its early morning here.

          I think the 'noose in neck' phrase was more to do with Anderson than the witness.

          The law is the law, and the act makes no dispence for race, religion etc.

          Monty

          Comment


          • #6
            Points of Law

            Unfortunately such points of law can become contentious and subject to different interpretations. Also the actual circumstances are rarely straightforward. Here Neil has, I think, touched upon the crux of the matter.

            In the case under discussion there can, from existing records, be only two viable candidates for being the witness in question and they, of course, are Israel Schwartz and Joseph Lawende. The 18 February, 1891 Daily Telegraph article makes Lawende the most likely of the two. And, contrary to what some would have you believe, such a witness may be used again even if he has previously identified another suspect.

            Points to bear in mind here are the fact that what Anderson claimed of the witness, i.e. "...the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer...", cannot be true as an examination of both Schwartz's and Lawende's sightings will show. Neither saw a suspect actually committing a murder so any decent defence lawyer would have made short work of 'the witness' in court.

            Add to this the fact that the suspect was insane and the supposed 'identification' took place over two years after the event, after a fleeting glimpse, in darkness, and the problems with Anderson's claims become evident.

            Comment


            • #7
              Morning Stewart,

              Ive a 1948 (9th edition) of C C H Moriarty's Police Law and the acts are still referred to in those editions.

              Being far more experienced on these matters, can I ask your take? Does Andersons words make sense to you?

              Cheers
              Monty


              PS Apologies, our posts crossed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Anderson's Words

                No, I agree that Anderson's words do not make make any sense as regards any literal interpretation. But it is a matter that I have discussed at length and which I sum up quite comprehensively in Scotland Yard Investigates. As you know Neil, this is an 'old chestnut' upon which there will never be full consensus of opinion amongst Ripper authorities. Those who favour Anderson and the 'Polish Jew' solution will never see fit to change their opinions on this.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Identification

                  Originally posted by How Brown View Post
                  ...
                  When the detained individual was brought forward for the witness to examine, if the witness had merely said "No, I do not remember this man..." and without inquiring about the suspect's ethnicity , then where does the attending policeman ( Not necessarily SRA because he may not have been there in the first place ) come up with this idea that the witness wouldn't put a Jewish neck in a noose by a simple "No" answer without any prior question(s) on the part of the witness ?
                  ...
                  Assuming that an identification, more or less as described, did actually take place then the following should be borne in mind.

                  Anderson wrote that on a different occasion he, himself, had confronted a man whom he believed was a murderer who was refusing to admit it. According to Anderson, although this man did not make any admission of guilt, when Anderson 'declared [to him] that the murderer had been found', the man 'turned deathly pale and trembled in his chair, but said nothing.' Still without a confession, Anderson was 'morally certain that I had the murderer before me!' One can only assume that even an innocent man would have reacted in such a way on being virtually accused of murder. But it was good enough for Anderson, he was convinced the man was a murderer.

                  Although it is unlikely that Anderson would have attended such an identification in person he would have been fully apprised of the event by the officer who did. Anderson's personal requirements for the establishment of guilt obviously fell well short of those required by law. Anderson was obviously of the opinion that guilt could be established by physical reactions as opposed to an admission or hard evidence.

                  In this case of identification, again accepting that it took place as described, it may be that the witness initially identified, or appeared to recognise, the suspect but then declined to make any sworn, formal identification as he was not certain - which, of course, given the circumstances he could not possibly have been. Anderson would have put his own interpretation on events.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SPE View Post
                    No, I agree that Anderson's words do not make make any sense as regards any literal interpretation. But it is a matter that I have discussed at length and which I sum up quite comprehensively in Scotland Yard Investigates. As you know Neil, this is an 'old chestnut' upon which there will never be full consensus of opinion amongst Ripper authorities. Those who favour Anderson and the 'Polish Jew' solution will never see fit to change their opinions on this.
                    Indeed Stewart, hot potatos and old chestnuts.

                    Just seems to me that the focus regarding this matter isnt where it should be, or glossed over.

                    Thanks for the valued input.

                    Monty

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Neil:

                      My apologies for the confusion. SPE"s remark:


                      And, contrary to what some would have you believe, such a witness may be used again even if he has previously identified another suspect.


                      .........is completely or rather was completely new to me. I didn't know this. I wonder if others knew this.

                      I did know it was possible that Lawende was the witness in the two separate incidents...but not in the way that I am seeing it now. In the former view, I assumed that there may have been an entirely different set of policemen or individual police official who conducted the 1895 Lawende & Suspect event involving W.G.Grainger.... who were oblivious to the event earlier based on SRA's writings which he didn't necessarily attend....and that there was the possibility that one hand didn't know what the other was doing,so to speak.

                      In this scenario, I now see that the original Lawende & witness event may have been dismissed completely, that the SRA event may have been what was dismissed as futile and that the 1895 event transpired with full cognizance of the original SRA event. if this makes sense, Neil.

                      I also see it differently now because as underlined....the possibility that Lawende may have identified someone positively originally did NOT necessarily mean that the police couldn't or wouldn't use him again to identify someone else, even if this second result was or may have been in the affirmative. This is an unusual situation and one I did not contemplate,personally.

                      SPE:

                      Thanks a million for stepping up to bat here with your other information ( for Mrs. E).. The segment that refers to the manner in which Anderson conducted that other identity parade ( for you readers) may be found in Scotland Yard Investigates.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by SPE View Post
                        In this case of identification, again accepting that it took place as described, it may be that the witness initially identified, or appeared to recognise, the suspect but then declined to make any sworn, formal identification as he was not certain - which, of course, given the circumstances he could not possibly have been. Anderson would have put his own interpretation on events.
                        You are clearly allowing a likely reality to stand in the way of a robust theory!

                        It's a pity that you've never benefited from any "historical scholarly training"!

                        What next?

                        A suggestion that the provenance of the so-called 'Swanson Marginalia' should not be blindly accepted? Even in light of the fact that one of the only participants in this field to have benefited from any "historical scholarly training" insists that it should be?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Identification

                          Originally posted by How Brown View Post
                          ...
                          My apologies for the confusion. SPE"s remark:
                          And, contrary to what some would have you believe, such a witness may be used again even if he has previously identified another suspect.
                          .........is completely or rather was completely new to me. I didn't know this. I wonder if others knew this.
                          I did know it was possible that Lawende was the witness in the two separate incidents...but not in the way that I am seeing it now. In the former view, I assumed that there may have been an entirely different set of policemen or individual police official who conducted the 1895 Lawende & Suspect event involving W.G.Grainger.... who were oblivious to the event earlier based on SRA's writings which he didn't necessarily attend....and that there was the possibility that one hand didn't know what the other was doing,so to speak.
                          In this scenario, I now see that the original Lawende & witness event may have been dismissed completely, that the SRA event may have been what was dismissed as futile and that the 1895 event transpired with full cognizance of the original SRA event. if this makes sense, Neil.
                          I also see it differently now because as underlined....the possibility that Lawende may have identified someone positively originally did NOT necessarily mean that the police couldn't or wouldn't use him again to identify someone else, even if this second result was or may have been in the affirmative. This is an unusual situation and one I did not contemplate,personally.
                          SPE:
                          Thanks a million for stepping up to bat here with your other information ( for Mrs. E).. The segment that refers to the manner in which Anderson conducted that other identity parade ( for you readers) may be found in Scotland Yard Investigates.
                          The argument has been that there may have been two Jewish witnesses used, i.e. Schwartz and Lawende; and that Schwartz having been used on the first i.d. (on the Polish Jew) and having made a positive identification could not be used again therefore Lawende was used for the second (Sadler) i.d. in view of this.

                          However, the first i.d. (if indeed it occurred and if the identification was positive but not sworn to) was, effectively, a failed identification. There is no reason why such a witness should not be used again therefore if it was Lawende who was involved in the first identification it would be possible to use him again for Sadler (or even use Schwartz twice given the same scenario).

                          In the Hanratty case of later years, as we know, the witness (and victim), Valerie Storie positively identified the wrong man at the first i.d. carried out. However, she was still used again for the later i.d. parade involving Hanratty and made a positive identification of him.

                          Obviously the circumstances of the first identification would lessen the value of the second, were it positive, but it could still be carried out to see what results could be obtained.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by How Brown View Post
                            Failing to attend or refuses to answer questions may result in a prison comittal up to 7 days, as per the SJ Act 1848 s.7 & IO Act 1848 s.16.
                            In the interests of clarity, does this extend to preliminary investigations, or does it only apply when a case is brought to court?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              In the interests of clarity, does this extend to preliminary investigations, or does it only apply when a case is brought to court?
                              Gareth, seeing as it is I who brought the topic up on Casebook, and quoted the acts, then maybe I can reply.

                              Im currently sitting outside a beach hut in Sutton on Sea and the works I quote are back home, so forgive me if my memory is incorrect. I suspect this is at the summons to court stage. If the ID of the murdered was established, procedure would have been to arrest the murderer, arrange court hearing and issue a summons to all witnesses. If the witness fails to appear, or refuses to answer the questions posed at court, then the 7 day sentence could be imposed.

                              The issue I have is would they have arrested upon identification? Is that enough alone?

                              Monty

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X