|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
The Dangers of Transcription
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
The Dangers of Transcription
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 02:58 am |        | Errare humanum est. I think that we all know the truth of this saying, to err is human. It has also been said that no book published is totally error free. In the field of factual writing this fact is particularly relevant. For factual books, as we know on these boards, are oft used and quoted in Ripper research. With our latest book now launched I was again reminded of this fact. And every effort was made by authors and publisher to avoid errors, especially serious ones. I know that there are a couple of small typos to be found, but it is factually very accurate.
The Victorian handwriting in the official Whitechapel murders files is often difficult to read and decipher. This problem has resulted in the publication of important errors in major works on the case, some of which have been copied in subsequent books. There is one such error in my first book, Jack the Ripper - First American Serial Killer which was repeated from earlier published work.
The point was brought home to me, as I have indicated, in relation to our new book, The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper. One of the most informed and well-read of contributors on these boards E-mailed me and asked if there was an error on page 29 of the new book. He pointed out that '...you quote the famous "I could myself in a few days unravel the mystery" quote, but attribute it "from Warren to the Assistant Commissioner CID." Surely these are Anderson's words? Or have I misinterpreted what you're saying? Every reference I have seen puts this boast in the mouth of Sir Robert rather than Sir Charles, and I wonder who is right or if I've completely missed the boat.'
He, of course, makes a valid point. And it is incumbent upon me to explain this to readers of the book. Our book is objective, factual, and not intended as a criticism of previous works. In this instance we are quoting facts which have revealed an error in previous works caused by a misreading of an original document. The wording of this document is reproduced in full, for the first time, in our book.
I can do no more than reproduce here my reply to my correspondent: -
"Now, as to the 'famous' quote that you query. Here is the history. The original document is two pages long and is handwritten. It is not in the Public Record Office but is held by Jim Swanson, Donald's grandson. The text was first published in The Uncensored Facts but did not appear in the A-Z....It was also quoted by Phil Sugden who has not seen the original document but quoted from Paul Begg. I have analysed the document, quoted it in full in the book, and correctly ascribed it...
At the top of this document is written A.C. C.I.D., which, as you would expect, is the addressee...The text is written as described in our book. The portion of the text in an unrecognised hand (which I believe would have been a secretary taking it down at Warren's dictation) is unsigned. However, it is directly followed by the paragraph written in Warren's own hand, initialled CW by him and dated 15.9.88. To me it seems fairly obvious that Warren has originated the document and passed [it] to the Assistant Commissioner for actioning.
Now at this date, 15 September [1888], Anderson had already been abroad for a week on his sick leave. So who is the Assistant Commissioner referred to? We don't have to look far. When Anderson was appointed Junior Assistant Commissioner on 31 August 1888, Alexander Carmichael Bruce was promoted to Senior Assistant Commissioner (on a slightly higher wage than Anderson). So Bruce is the Assistant Commissioner referred to on the front page of the report...
For confirmation of these facts we turn back to the front page of the document and check the annotations [or minutes] down the left margin. First we have Mr. Williamson, Supt Shore & Ch. Insp. Swanson to see. Under this are initials thus ACB 15.9.88 [Alexander Carmichael Bruce 15 Sept 1888]
Under this is - Seen. 15.9.88, JohnShoresupt.
Under this - Seen, AFW 15/9 [Adolphus Frederick Williamson]
Obviously this internal memo was then given to Swanson as it was instructions for him to follow and he kept it as a souvenir and it is still with his family..."
In relation to the foregoing I am in a position to post copies of the original document and handwriting samples in order to back up this analysis. I hope it helps for anyone who has the same query as my correspondent. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 05:27 am | | I realise that the questioned document in this instance is not generally available so I have decided to post a copy of it, this is page 1: -
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 05:29 am | | And page 2: -
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 05:31 am | | Warren's note enlarged: -
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 06:03 am | | Now on page 1 you will see clearly the addressee 'A.C. C.I.D.' and the minutes by Assistant Commissioner Bruce, Superintendent Shore, and Chief Constable Williamson down the left-hand margin. These minutes show the passage of the memo to Swanson who retained it.
The first minute is initialled 'ACB' by the Assistant Commissioner, Alexander Carmichael Bruce, who received the instruction from Warren. This was normal procedure and many of the reports in the official files have been minuted by Bruce and initialled 'ACB.' To example this, and to compare it to the actual minute referred to above I have set it (Example 'A') against a minute of Bruce's from MEPO 3/140, f 24, (Example 'B') of 18th September, 1888, a report in the Chapman murder file: -
This will lead onto other considerations. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 06:26 am | | In order to show that the initials 'ACB' are those of the Senior Assistant Commissioner, A. C. Bruce, we need go no further than a report signed by him, dated 10th September, 1888, [HO 144/220/A49301B, f 185]: -
His signature and initials are rather scrawled and this has led to past misidentification of his writings as I will show. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 07:04 am | | I have to stress here that the purpose of this thread is not to score points off the mistakes of others, nor to show anyone up. It is to remind us all, including me, that we all make mistakes. The next error, involving the same person, has also become part of Ripper lore, yet it is totally incorrect. It is wrong in the A-Z, it is wrong in Phil Sugden's book, it is wrong in my first book, and in others. It clearly demonstrates the dangers we face in this field of research.
I am here referring to the famous 'Packer statement' of 4 October 1888. This 'statement' is not actually an official statement but, ostensibly, notes of what Packer had to say. It has always been assumed to have been taken by Warren himself and there are probably three reasons for this.
1. The two private detectives hired by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, Grand and Batchelor, stated that they were taking Packer to see Warren himself.
2. A. C. Bruce's handwriting is similar to, but not the same as, Warren's.
3. Hitherto no one has identified Bruce as the Assistant Commissioner dealing in Anderson's absence, and deciphered the scrawl of his initials.
I have always thought that there is no way that a Chief Commissioner of Police would descend from his dizzy heights to see a couple of 'private eyes' with a contentious witness. Here then is the said document: -
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 07:05 am | | And page 2: -
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 07:07 am | | And a close-up of the initials 'ACB' at the end of this document: -
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 07:16 am | | I should also add here that I have been fortunate enough to examine the original documents and to photograph many of them. This is essential where we wish to correct the anomalies created by some of these errors.
Ripper research and writing is part of a long and continuing learning curve, and it is only by identifying and correcting past errors that we will build a better factual basis for understanding. |
Author: John Dixon
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 09:33 am | | Thank You.
All of us who can't access primary sources are dependant on work such as yours.
Is it possible to post primary source material to a board of its own?
John |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 11:44 am | | | Could anyone access a piece of Abberline's handwriting and print it up here ? Thanks. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 12:57 pm | | Here is a sample of Abberline's handwriting from the report of 18th September, 1888, [MEPO 3/140, f 24] on the arrest of Isenschmid: -
 |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 05:48 am | | | Thanks Stewart ! |
|
|
|
|
