The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-09 00:00:00

IDENTIFICATION OF PRISONERS.

The result of the trial of the second batch of
Fenians at Manchester was not unexpected. For-
tunately for the prisoners one of the witnesses for the
prosecution broke down entirely, and was obliged to
admit that he was mistaken in his indentification of
one of the accused. This circumstance naturally
threw an air of doubt on the whole case, and the jury,
in the exercise of a merciful discretion, found all the
prisoners " not guilty." We cannot blame them for
arriving at such a conclusion, for the evidence of
John Beck, the railway clerk, as to William Martin
(one of the men on their trial) was strange enough
to shake, for the moment at any rate, their faith in
the testimony offered as to the identity of the rest
of the prisoners. Beck swore positively that he had
seen W. Martin, at the time of the attack on the
police van, throwing stones at the police and
at civilians. After a close cross-examination
it turned out that another prisoner, named
John Martin, was the person whom the
witness really meant to identify. The error
was beyond explanation even by tha acute and
learned Attorney-General. William Martin was no
more like John Martin than Hamlet was like Her-
cules. William had rough red hair, John had smooth
brown hair. William was untidy in his dress, John
was the reverse. The witness, however, says the
Times reporter, " did not seem much disconcerted
by this discovery." We heartily sympathise with
the indignation with which the prisoners' counsel
denounced such reckless swearing. Where two men
are as like as two Dromios, a witness may well
be confounded. But it is difficult to frame an ex-
cuse for a man who comes forward coolly to swear
indifferently to either John or William, to a ragged
man with red rough hair, or to a neat man with
smooth brown hair. Without particular reference to
this man Beck's evidence, it may be doubted
whether the present method of identifying criminals
is satisfactory. As a general rule the process is con-
ducted within prison walls, and the witnesses,
whilst examining the countenances of different
prisoners, are immediately under the -eye. of—the
police. Now we have no desire to impute conscious
unfairness to any officers of justice. Still it must
be remembered that policemen are so familiar with
guilt that they are apt to be a little incredulous of
innocence. They have an interest unquestionably
that a man .whom they have arrested one any
charge should turn out to be the right man, and
hence, without any desire to do wrong, they may
voluntarily direct a witness's attention to the
person whom they conceive to be the real criminal.
We believe that greater precautions ought to be
taken to insure the impartial conduct of the process
of identification. The suspected person ought to
be placed amongst a number of others, and the
scrutiny should always be conducted hi the absence
of those police who are directly interested in the
case. Under no circumstances ought an accused
man to be specially marked. We quite agree
with Mr. Seymour that it was not dealing fair play
to Martin that he should be subject to identification
whilst chained to another. At the best evidence to
identify is not the most reliable sort of evidence,
and when it has been obtained by questionable
means it becomes absolutely worthless. Re-
cognition, we may add, should never be stimu-
lated by the hope of a reward. The policy of offer-
ing rewards is in all cases doubtful, for, although
the days when " professional" witnesses used
to lurk about courts of justice ready to
swear anything for a guinea, have, happily, passed
away, there are still men to be found who are not
proof against pecuniary temptation. But to offer
money for evidence of identity is, we conceive,
utterly useless. Plenty of evidence may be pro-
duced by such means. It is easier to identify per-
sons than to invent circumstances. The quality of
the evidence obtained, however, will probably be
inversely as its quantity.—Solicitor ' Jeuri;«l,