|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Primary sources
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
Primary sources
Author: Jon
Monday, 17 January 2000 - 08:33 pm |        | Kemp
In several responses to your postes, one common denominator is, confusion.
A little suggestion.....why dont you lay out your stall?
State where you're coming from, where you're at & where you're going.
Encapsulate your hypothasis, theory or belief, and help your readers to grasp what your aiming at.
Regards, Jon |
Author: kemp
Tuesday, 18 January 2000 - 07:01 am | | Dear Jon,
I think most people are well aware of my argument already;however I will try and assist your comprehension with a few more details asap.
Thanks for the reply,
kemp. |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 18 January 2000 - 07:56 am | | Hi Kemp,
Sorry, but I for one don't understand your argument(s) at all. A hotz-potz of individual claims, unproven points, incorrect data, demands on us to chose only between those points that you think relevant and other such methods lead absolutely nowhere.
Like Jon, Bob H. and a number of others, I can't see what you are aiming at. You state repeatedly such things as, just to give one example, Anderson being a 'liar'. Now, Anderson claimed things that we must, in light of the evidence we have, assume to be false. MacNaughton, a large number of others too, reported incorrectly according to the evidence we have. Any ripperologist of any value at all knows that from the beginning, and it is handled at length in a large number of books. What you are doing is the same. You state as fact that which is not proven, or even proved to be false, and you read into circumstances the causes which support your theory, in order to try to prove you are correct. That is exactly what Anderson and others did, no more.
I can, as can anyone, read into the whole of the Ripper story that which interests me, and invent or by using lose conjecture formulate any sort of nonsense I may please, that does not make it true. I do not mean that you should stop making your points, but I must be absolutely honest here and say that IMHO, much of what you write has the appearance of being argumentive for the sole purpose of being argumentive alone.
You mention repeatedly that you will be forwarding answers and proofs of your claims shortly, but a conclusive, full-ended agument for any one of a myriad of claims is still to be seen.
I would suggest that, to come forward, we settle on just a couple of your claims first, by using primary sources alone. That is the name of this archive but until now, I have seen very little of such.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: kemp
Tuesday, 18 January 2000 - 07:12 pm | | Dear Bob C,
A couple of points regarding your reply of Jan 18th. I regret the fact that you find my points argumentative for the sole purpose of being argumentative alone. Sometimes the challenge can be in the challenge itself but this is not my intention here.I shall try to oblige your request to deal with a couple of claims and to conversely "lay out my stall" as asked by Jon.
I DO BELIEVE THERE IS MORE THAN AN ELEMENT OF TRUTH IN THE ROYAL CONSPIRACY THEORY BUT I AM NOT ARGUING THAT HERE AS THE PRIMARY SOURCES DO NOT FULLY BACK THIS UP PER SE.Hence I have not referred to any marriage between Annie and Teddy/Netley etc under the heading "Primary Sources". I do believe,however, that primary source material has revealed irregularities/unusual coincidences/lies etc by certain named officials. Thus to be specific my argument is in 2 parts. (A) To establish that important contemporaries either lied/acted strangely etc.....and (B) To explain why they did so. To date I have been arguing (A).
Now back to Bob's 2 specific points;actually please permit me to focus on just one so as to give contributors an opportunity to respond to this letter and my recent ones above. Yes Bob I am saying that either Anderson was a liar or he was correct in saying that JTR was caught.If he was caught then he and others did cover it up !! If JTR was not caught then Anderson was telling lies !!! Interestingly you even stated that his claims must be regarded "..as false.." If they are false then he was a liar. :-)So we have an official who told lies? So what ? In isolation it seems to have no significance but we are not just talking about your average P.C. This was a major official acting in an irregular manner? I find this aspect suspicious. I am making the same point about various other figures as well.
*** To accuse me of not referring to primary sources is a little unfair. I have made reference to local newspapers, coroners' reports,witness statements,officials' writings,(Goulston St. writing ;-) both"erased/unerased versions"(lol)). ***
Again many thanks for the replies. Slain leat agus...
Kemp. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 04:21 am | | Dear Kemp,
I think your basic problem is that you are unable to assimilate information and present the knowledge thus gained in an understandable fashion.
You describe yourself as an 'historian' a description I find rather strange. What sort of historian doesn't even bother to check his basic facts?
For example as an excuse for getting Warrens resignation date wrong you say you did check the A to Z (although you did omit to specify what A to Z you were quoting from). Well in my A to Z (1996 Headline PB) page 471 I find the same passage you quoted. However as you must have read, it says the 'resignation was accepted' on the 9th not that it was tendered on the 9th. In any case it then goes on to explain the reason for the resignation, a reason you choose to completely ignore, and put your own version instead.
You also seem to be in total ignorance of the way human beings work. According to you if someone is not stating a fact they are lying. This is nonsense. If you have a witness to a crime describing the suspect as being 5' 8" and in fact he turns out to be 5' 9", according to you that witness is lying is he?
There are many reasons why people do not get things right, they could be mistaken, they could be prejudiced, they could be deceived themselves, etc etc.
Telling a lie is saying something that the person knows to be untrue with the intention of deceiving someone. When Anderson stated that JTR had been caught, incarcerated and identified, he might have been repeating something he genuinely believed to be correct or he might have been lying we don't know. If you know different then tell us upon what do you base your assumption on?
Get yourself a decent basic library on the subject, do a lot of reading and thinking and then when you've got your thoughts sorted out come back and tell us.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 06:12 am | | Hi Kemp,
Sigh....
"but I must be absolutely honest here and say that IMHO, much of what you write has the appearance of being argumentive for the sole purpose of being argumentive alone"
is not:
".....the fact that you find my points argumentative for the sole purpose of being argumentative alone."
(my bold script).
This 'fact' you mention is simply false, and that is the point of so much in this discussion!
Bob H. has already spoken for me in some cases, including the 'liar'bit or not. I thought that point was obvious from how I wrote it concerning e.g. Anderson. Bob H. has already specified the difference between 'lie' and 'mistake'. but just to refer to your own works, you say you have referred to primary sources such as local newspapers. A local newspaper is not the source to be safely called 'primary'. If I were to say that you have 'lied' because of that, you would be rightly angry.
You are convinced that some cover-up existed. Good. I have no absolute sure evidence that it didn't. But then, I can't prove that the moon isn't made of green cheese either. I do not even dispute that some covering up may have occurred for some reason, but I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever anywhere for it. If you can provide me with some really hard facts, so much the better.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 10:14 am | | Hi, all:
I have been trying to stay clear of this controversy because I do not think it is leading anywhere. However, I think I will stick my tuppence in. Perhaps it will buy me a glass of gin? ha ha.
I believe that Sir Robert Anderson, in "The Lighter Side of My Official Life," and in the Blackwoods article that preceded it, was talking through his hat. Why do people do and say the things they do? As some of you may know, I have done considerable work on military records and officer's reminiscences and memoirs in regard to the War of 1812. People who are in a position of power write a lot of things, some of it self-justification and trying to make light of certain situations. In my experience, the writings written at the time of an event are likely to be the most reliable but even here there is bias depending on the officer's perspective. In Sir Robert's case, we have memoirs written and published 22 years after the events they concern.
My personal belief is that Anderson was a pompous ass. Possibly, he was trying to put a good light on what was a sorry episode in the history of the Metropolitan police -- the fact that the police force that he headed did not catch a famous killer. Who is going to admit a grievous failure if you can avoid doing so? More probably he was remembering a suspect who was high on the list of possibles for the Whitechapel murderer. It could well be that at the time of the killings he genuinely believed this man to be the Ripper, although contemporary records that survive do not bear this out, and nor do the writings of other police officers, particularly Major Smith who vehemently protested Anderson's assertions. As Stewart Evans pointed out in the recent interview I did with him for "Ripper Notes," different officers in a police investigation often believe different suspects did the crime; that is human nature for there to be a lack of unanimity. They can't all be right. Their personal preferences and prejudices come into play (this latter is my interpretation of the situation, not Stewart's, I should add).
Just as the Monro/Warren rivalry helped force Warren's resignation along with his unpopularity following "Bloody Sunday" in Trafalgar Square in November 1887, there are a lot of forces at play here, and not just the conspiracy that Kemp appears to believe is behind every police action or statement.
Chris George |
Author: steve
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 10:45 am | | Dear everybody,
I am not an expert but it seems to me that everybody is picking on kemp.What did U do kemp.I thought the killer was supposed to be a doctor.Sorry I donot know much about the killings. How many women were killed.I read some of the pages on this web site and some people say 6 and some say more.Bye. Steve. |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 11:45 am | | Hi CG,
Exactly that. My post from tuesday....(sorry if it bores).
"you state as fact that which is not proven, or even proved to be false, and you read into circumstances the causes which support your theory, in order to try to prove you are correct. That is exactly what Anderson and others did, no more."
Anderson probably was a pompous ass. Churchill made it clear what he thought of him in the house. "....the spirit of how Bill Adams won the battle of Waterloo....", "..how much more he could tell... if his mouth were not that what he is pleased to call closed.." etc. I don't think, however, I should go to the point of calling him a liar, that would endanger any point of view other than one's own.
Steve, we just don't know how many women Jack bumped off. 'At least four, possibly six, maybe eight' is the usual motto.
Picking on Kemp? Who?. If you write the same on the board as he, you'll get a similar reaction. He seems to be able to take care of himself anyway, and the JtR-board is no Kindergarten-discussion group. (I nearly wrote MU...(Howl! Shriek!))
Best regards
Bob |
Author: kemp
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 07:20 pm | | Dear Bob H,
Now now Bob I do feel that you have gone a little bit too personal with your remarks about me as a historian.If you are goint to criticise me please do verify your "facts" first.
(1) You state "..as an excuse for getting Warren's resignation wrong etc..". Well Bob I did apologise for the mix up already you know.Also I was being jovial in my remarks about texts. Hence I used the symbol ;-)
(2) You accuse me of failing to "..specify what A to Z..( I was )..quoting from.." Actually Bob , I did specify Begg et al "The Jack The Ripper A to Z".Page 301. I think that is quite specific ;unless you want the full op cit,ibid,publisher etc each and every time. I notice that other people don't use these full details at every stage Bob.
(3)Bob,another statement you made about me is "..You also seem to be in total ignorance of the way human beings work.." Wow Bob!I didn't know you were a psychologist/anatomy specialist/mind reader/connected to my ID/as well as a magistrate.Mind you Bob, I certainly hope that you rely on your obvious objectivity and not on your telepathic powers when in Court !Sorry to be a bit like that Bob but you were a little disparaging about my skills as a historian.
(4) Er..Bob..not quite sure whether you are asking if I do believe a suspect identified as 5ft.8ins. is really 5ft.9ins. or if you are stating I have already said that.Anyway the answers are NO and NO. Sorry about my confusion there Bob.The responsibility is obviously all mine as you did state most clearly that I am "..unable to assimilate information and present the knowledge thus gained in an understandable fashion.." This is naturally why I can't also understand information like your point about suspects of 5ft+ even though you stated it so clearly. Silly me.
Hey Bob, I do agree with you on some things.You argued "..There are many reasons why people do not get things right,they could be mistaken,they could be prejudiced,they could be deceived themselves,etc etc.." Yes Bob and also they could be telling lies; that would come under your etc of course.Another thing Bob, I think I have used the following phrases;mistakes,irregularities,errors etc. Hey Bob, I've even admitted that I could be wrong! Fancy that, eh? So there you go Bob; we both agree that there are various reasons for people getting things wrong.
Hey Bob,guess what? I also agree that Anderson may have been lying!Perhaps he was telling the truth Bob? Yep Bob, he may have been repeating something he believed to be true. Maybe someone else lied to him?Maybe someone else lied to this other someone else.You stated "..Anderson might have been lying we don't know.." Seems pretty close to my words Bob. Oh go on then I did state he was a liar or it was a cover up didn't I? I forgot to mention the other reasons didn't I?Mind you Bob, you also forgot to mention the cover up as a possibility didn't you? Unless it is simply that I still can not assimilate information Bob?
I tell you what Bob, I'm going to try and condense my argument for you. I do hope that I've done a bit of "thinking" and got my "..thoughts sorted out.." I mean it's not as if I was a historian or any such thing like that. here we go:
1. Dr.Ph. seemed reluctant to give evidence at the Edd. inquiry.
2. As regards the kelly jurisdiction Mac. lied/changed excuses/was mistaken/said something he believed to be true but may not have been( I'm trying to be careful Bob)/covered up (possibly)/and yes just maybe he was acting in the best interests of justice because Bax. was a too long winded chap.
3. The kelly inquiry was a little short.Perhaps he wanted the inquiry over quickly to hide something.Maybe the brevity of proceedings was just one of those things one does in the etc blah blah.
4. I did earlier( when we were on speaking terms Bob) mention the possibility of drugs being used on the victims.
5. I referred to possibly 2 men being seen at 2 murder sites.
6. Warren took responsibility for the Goulston St. wipe off.
7. Perhaps Juwes is/was a masonic reference.
8. Abberline was a bit offside as regards Cl/ST.( I have not argued the Sickert thing in relation to this. I said it shows his willingness to be.. er..not as keen as one would have hoped when dealing with important people in a bit of bother).
9. Anderson. Enough said on him, eh Bob?
10. I now intend to move onto more details about a possible masonic connection.
*** My intention Bob is to try and illustrate that a perceived masonic involvement led to various people acting in an irregular fashion.I don't know the truth Bob. I have my ideas as you have yours. Remember biased Bob? I could be 100% out.I could be naive.I may be misguided. However I respect your right to have your view;Hutch isn't it?Please respect mine. I may not be as au fait with the case as yourself but I do feel I have some imput to make. Unless you are arguing that only those who have read at least 20 books deserve to be on these boards? Remember your "..come back and tell us..", Bob? Of course if I was any kind of historian I would argue that extrapolation does have a role to play in all historical analysis. ***
Thanks for the reply Bob.
Slan leat agus.. Kemp.
Dear Chris G, Bob C and Steve,
Thanks for the replies. I will try and get back to you asap. I'm a bit wrecked after my little chat with Bob H.Anyway myself and the wife are off for a late drink. I'll get back to you. Cheers!
Slan... Kemp. |
Author: kemp
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 07:57 pm | | Dear Bob H,
Hey Bob ! Can I change point 1 to read that it was C/man's inquest. Silly me forgot to proof read the letter. Good job we had that quick pint to help the old assimilation,eh? Cheers Bob.
Cu Kemp. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 19 January 2000 - 08:47 pm | | Kemp -
I have no doubt I am quite thick, but I can't understand what you're driving at with your 10 points. Are you stating these as things you believe, or using them as underpinnings for a larger theory?
1. Dr Phillips - yes, he was reluctant. He saw what the papers had printed with all the details brought out in the Nichols inquest, and did not want a repeat. Dr Phillips also did not think much of the press, and is quoted at least once as saying "hang the papers." He also made a perfectly legitimate point; the injuries Baxter was asking about were not the cause of death and had no bearing on a finding of willful murder.
2 and 3. You have given every excuse that might be made for or against Coroner MacDonald. So? If you're using him as an example of acting irregularly, you must pick one.
4. Drugs. This is a possibility, but was always denied whenever it was asked of an examining doctor.
5. Two men at two murder sites? Berner St comes to mind immediately; which is the other?
6. Warren took responsibility for removing the "Juwes" writing. So? That was his job.
7. "Juwes" is Masonic. No it isn't. It's British. It's American. It's never used. It's commonly used. Nobody agrees on this, and any argument you use - pro or con - will be argued against.
8. Abberline and Cleveland Street. I think you are mistaking not taking action for not being ALLOWED to take action, and do not believe you can retroactively use Abberline's 1889 actions against him in 1888. However, I am doing some further investigation into the matter, and will answer more fully later.
9. Anderson. I don't believe him myself. I do not necessarily think he was lying.
10. Masonic connection. I am trying hard not to roll my eyes, and look forward to hearing what you have to say.
That's all.
CMD |
Author: anon
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 01:28 am | | | Hear, hear, CMD. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 04:29 am | | Dear Anyone,
Has anyone, anywhere got the slightest idea what Kemp is rambling on about?
I'm rapidly losing the will to live here!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: kemp
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 04:40 am | | Dear CMD,
Thanks for some interesting points.I intend to try and answer these and your earlier remarks sometime today. Apologies if my list of 10 was a bit general but I was trying to cover myself with Bob H.( I didn't want to upset him again ):-)
Slan leat agus..
Kemp. |
Author: kemp
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 04:51 am | | Hey Bob,
I must have been on line at the same time as you !Ah Bob, you mean you don't know that my long letter was directed at your naughty attack on me as a historian. I feel really bad now Bob. I thought you were accusing me of "..ignorance.." etc. Silly me Bob.
I tell you what though; I'll try and lay out my full ideas sometime today.I do hope that you will feel that I have my thoughts "..sorted out.." I will also try and not show my "..ignorance.." and I hope I will be able to "..assimilate.." information correctly. Anyway sorry again Bob because I now understand you were not personally insulting me. Silly me.
Slan..
Kemp. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 04:55 am | | Kemp -
You wrote:
Dear Bob H,
Now now Bob I do feel that you have gone a little bit too personal with your remarks
about me as a historian.If you are goint to criticise me please do verify your "facts" first.
Please enlighten us as to your credentials as a historian. This will allow us all to 'verify our "facts"' on this issue.
For the record, I have no training whatsoever as a historian. I am merely a "history enthusiast".
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 03:29 pm | | Dear Kemp,
It is impossible for me to launch an 'attack on you as a historian' as I have never considered you as such.
I believe my remark went on 'what kind of historian doesn't even bother to check his basic facts'
You answered this by a totally incomprehensible reply part of which read:
1. Dr Ph seemed reluctant to give evidence at the Eddowes inquiry
You then followed this with a post which started "Change point one to read Chapmans inquest - silly me I forgot to proof read it"
Now I don't know how you see that but it certainly appears as if you didn't check your
basic facts again doesn't it?
I really do think you want to take a deep breath and try and sort out what you want to say.
Please don't concern yourself about 'upsetting' me, I can assure you that would be a task far beyond your capabilities, I don't think however that this is the place for you to continue trying to score points against me. I'm quite sure everyone else finds it as mindnumbingly boring as I do. If you wish to continue to do so, you have my email address, lets keep these boards for discussion on the case in hand.
Now why don't you do what several contributors have suggested you do. Sort your ideas out, back them up with anything that might help your case, and as someone said previously lay out your stall, or as I said way, way back - lay your cards on the table!
Bob Hinton |
Author: JacksBack
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 06:06 pm | | | Meow...... |
Author: steve
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 06:45 am | | | Dear kemp, I read a few things about the royal family on this site.do you mean it was all about the stuff in a book by sickert?Bye Steve |
Author: kemp
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 03:26 pm | | Dear Bob H,
Look Bob, I do not want to be exchanging attacks with you like this.I am not interested in scoring points off you at all.I mean I don't even know you do I ? I was simply responding in kind to a letter that I thought was a little abusive.If this was not your intent then I apologise. If this was your intent then I have had my say. I want to get back to discussing the case because I do have a genuine interest. Fair enough ?
Slan, kemp.
Dear Guy,
For what it's worth my qualifications are a BA(HIST),MA,MED,HDE. The latter being a teaching qualification in Eire.
Slan,
Kemp. |
Author: anon
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 05:56 pm | | | Why is it that 'qualified' historians often seem so gullible and lacking in common sense? |
Author: kemp.
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 11:42 am | | Dear All,
I am almost ready to answer some of the specific points put to me and then to move onto the substantial part of my analysis. Apologies for the delay ( the wife's birthday yesterday !!).
Before I move on I'd be interested in hearing thoughts on Leather Apron. I don't mean the miniscule details; I'm more concerned on whether those experienced in researching this individual believe he was a genuine suspect or a " patsy".
Slan,
Kemp. |
Author: Pete kemp
Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 10:49 am | | Dear All,
Just doing a test.A bit difficult to get to grips with the new system This is kemp changing to Tiger.
Slan leat..
Kemp (now Tiger). |
Author: Pete kemp
Saturday, 29 January 2000 - 10:51 am | | Dear All,
Success at last !!!
Tiger/kemp |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 02:10 pm | | Dear All,
I'm steering clear of the elaborate theories and
deductions based on the sources under discussion,
feeling that life is too short for me to go back
through archive entries to see what it was all
about originally and who Kemp is.
But I may be able to contribute a little
useful knowledge on which to base opinions of
Anderson. Credentials first. When I started
working on the Ripper, I not only read 'The
Lighter Side of My Official Life' and 'On
Criminals and Crime', but also
A.P.Moore-Anderson's memoir of Sir Robert and a
couple of of the old boy's 20+ books of theology.
These last are very important, as they show the
main and central concern of Anderson's life. The
theology is original, independent, and in my
opinion cranky and bigoted. But it isn't to be
dismissed as stupid or irrelevant. A graduate
student from Heythrop, the highly respected Jesuit
theological college now attached to the University
of London, wrote to me about ten years ago because
he was doing a thesis on Anderson, who can still
hold the interest and attention of specialist
theologians.
I also had the advantage of being able to see
the Scotland Yard archives with Anderson's memos
on the Ripper case, (and I have every sympathy
with American researchers who are put at an unfair
disadvantage because these are out of their
reach). By the time I started writing I was
already able to pick out the items Anderson
contributed to the notorious unsigned London Times
series 'On Parnellism and Crime': later research
showed that I had identified them absolutely
correctly.
I noted the comments by people like the spy
'Le Caron', and the crime writers Hargrave Adam
and Major Griffiths, and Anderson's contributions
to books by one or other of them: I found on the
debit side Anderson mixing up two different cases
in correspondence with Adam at the very end of his
life. So I assessed Anderson from a strong
grounding in his own self-exposure in his writing,
and contemporary opinion of him. I think it is
fair to say that I have for a long time known more
about the police involved in the case than anyone
else, until Stewart Evans started his massive work
on the files. I've always taken great pride in
revising the caricature of Warren that existed in
Ripper literature prior to 1987, and giving a
clearer picture of the moderate liberalism and
amateur scholarship underlying the military
martinet
attacked in the press.
Subsquently I have seen a great many more of
Anderson's memos. I had the good luck to be in the
Scotland Yard archives room at a moment when the
late Russel Grey had just come across an old memo
identifying two of the spies Anderson controlled
when he was the Home Office anti-Fenian
spymaster. Russel was checking that this closed
file could now be safely opened. (Ripper work is
constantly carrying one into these areas of
preposterous government secrecy: Anderson's spy
controlling work as far back as 1870 was still
closed to the public when I began research, though
I can't imagine who or what was supposedly
endangered by secret information on the ludicrous
Fenian 'invasion of Canada'! I will admit my
shortsighted folly if Jerry Adams and Martin
McGuinness ever put together a task force to
besiege London, Ontario!) Anyway, the paper
Russel showed proved that Anderson was not, as had
been suggested, managing only the one spy - Le
Caron - and boosting him into a pretence to
knowledge of the inner workings of the Fenians.
Another set of papers I found in the notoriously
half-closed, half-uncatalogued box of Home Office
papers, HO144 in the Public Record Office, showed
that among some civil servants' complaints about
Anderson's irresponsible leakiness was an exchange
of memos protesting about a paper he gave at a
conference in 1901 which used the very words about
the Ripper he later reprinted in 1907 in 'On
Criminals and Crime'. The conference papers with
Anderson's printed article were included, so it
can be stated with absolute certainty that
Anderson was saying the Ripper had been identified
and caged in an asylum BEFORE he retired, and not
as a piece of geriatric boasting.
For what it's worth, I also traced Anderson's
granddaughter to an old people's home in South
Africa and spoke to her on the telephone. I won't
pretend that she gave me any more useful
information than the pretty standard view of
grandchildren of Victorian policemen who remember
them, that they were very strict! And the sad news
that she believed her father had destroyed
Anderson's papers in London after completing his
own memoir of his parents.
Lastly, I have the general advantage of being
a trained literary historian with a rather
detailed knowledge of 19th century politics. (My
thesis was on Disraeli). So I know where critics
of Anderson like Sir William Harcourt 'are coming
from'. (It might help British readers if I
synopsised him as a sort of Gladstonian version of
Denis Healey: a parliamentary bruiser who nearly
became party leader and so carried immense
prestige, though his forte was aggressive partisan
oratory rather than original or subtle thinking or
perceptiveness. I'm sorry I don't know who could
be put forward as an American equivalent.) And
with a nonconformist background via a Quaker home
and a Methodist school, I've know quite a lot
about the sort of committed religiosity which was
the most important thing in Anderson's life.
The blank suggestion that Anderson was a liar
owes most to Stephen Knight. 'Nuff said, I hope. I
have alwayas expressed respect for a lot of the
work Knight did (eg his being the first to
publish data on Israel Schwartz). But...!
I don't overlook the 'Anderson's Fairy Tales'
comment in parliament, but it has to be placed in
the context of the Irish question. Anderson was an
absolutely bigoted Black Prot. He genuinely
thought that tha Catholic Church was OBVIOUSLY
under the direct control of Satan. (He thought the
same overlord controlled all churches that had
acquired any worldly wealth and
instutionalisation, but he thought it was easy to
overlook this in the 'less corrupt' protestant
churches). So he regarded Home Rule agitation as
treason that was deliberately working in the
devil's cause. I mean, he thought that literally!
He was no friend to Liberal politicians, and they
knew it. So it's little wonder that Harcourt and
Churchill, Liberal Home Secretaries, give us some
of the most damning contemporary observations on
Anderson. And Churchill was dealing with a case
where Anderson really had self-righteously
overstepped all reasonable bounds of civil service
decorum, publishing data from secret files to
support a series whose whole aim was discrediting
legitimate politicians with whom he disagreed.
The oddest thing from a detached historical
point of view is the way commentators like Adam
and Griffiths talk about his being immensely
discreet and secretive, while Home Office
mandarins are screaming their heads off about his
irresponsibe leakiness. Here one really does come
to the 'How Bill Adams won the Battle of Waterloo'
aspect. Like many self-memorialists, Anderson
appears to have never made a mistake in his life.
Indeed, he's achieved an awful lot that's pretty
terrific... only for security reasons he can't
tell you about it.... And so he keeps hinting at
what he knows, and the hints exasperate his civil
service masters, while the discretion frustrates
the fascinated crime buffs. It was quirky,
individual and striking, and Monro shows himself
aware of it as a foible that amounts to a weakness
when he puts three exclamation marks in the margin
beside Anderson's claim that his refusal to name
names is 'respecting the traditions of his old
department'. This is as near as one comes to a
cover-up in Anderson's writing: a wish to come out
and tell all and get the credit, hampered by the
knowledge that even before the Official Secrets
Act it was an impropriety which would have some
politicians howling for his pension. His treatment
of the 'Jubilee Bomb Plot' is almost exactly
similar to his treatment of the Ripper case. he
tells us he and Monro had a triumph and were very
relieved. He doesn't tell us how, who, what. He's
tantalising, conceited, and uninformative. Only in
the Jubilee Bomb Plot case, much can be adequately
pieced together from other sources.
In fact, Anderson's characteristic
self-righteous conceit was one of the strong
points leading me to the belief (which Stewart
Evans has now convincingly shown to be erroneous)
that the memorandum headed 'AC Crime' in Monro's
copy of Anderson's memoirs was actually from
Anderson. It would be quite typical of him to
think that he would solve the case very quickly if
he could only spare the time
The one place where we really do find a
police cover up - the suppression of continuing
suspicion that the Ripper was Jewish - is
completely uncovered in Anderson. (The obvious
primary source evidence of this cover-up is
Hutchinson's statement: his signed statement on
the files explicitly says 'Jewish-looking.' This
is watered down to 'foreign-looking' for the
press.)
Now those are the facts and data I work from.
If you want to challenge them, please find
alternative factual data before asking people to
devote time to argument.
My conclusions, on the other hand, may be
disagreed with by all means. For what they are
worth, I think there is no possibiity whatsoever
that Anderson would ever have distorted the truth
as he saw it. Nor have I found him exaggerating to
boost his own importance. His 'claim' to have
stopped the on-street murders by warning
prostitutes that they could not be protected, for
example, is (even in Phil Sugden's words) only 'an
inference' drawn from a statement which begins
with the cautious arse-covering proviso, 'However
it may be explained..." (I note, too, that Phil
was unaware that Anderson was making his
statements about th Ripper's being identified as
early as 1901, and repeating them in print in
1907. So Phil puts them down to geriatric rambling
or boasting in retirement in 1910: a conclusion
which is disproved by reference back to the
primary source.)
I agree with anti-Andersonians, however, that
Anderson was so obstinate and opinionated that he
would have stuck to a wrong conclusion for much
longer than most people. I see no reason in the
original documents to believe his memory was
shaking by 1901, and so I take it that there was
definitely a Jewish suspect positively identified
by a Jewish witness who thereupon refused to give
a sworn cofnirmation of his ID. I think it
extremely probable that this took place after the
suspect had been certified and committed. I note
that we only know for sure of two other people who
were aware of this ID, (Macnaghten and Monro) and
Macnaghten's error about the witness being a City
policeman suggests that he only knew about it
secondhand. I note that Monro was by no means as
sure as Anderson that the ID solved the case, and
Littlechild, who may or may not have known
Anderson's basis, thought he gave far too high
credence to his identification of the Ripper.
The conflicts between Anderson's and Monro's
accounts are obviously very important indeed. I
believe they must be addressed in harness with
some consideration of the ways in which Monro's
account conflicts with demonstrable historical
fact. I think it is addressing the problems quite
improperly and unhistorically to suggest that
'Anderson was lying to boost his or the Met's
reputation'. This would be completely out of
character for Anderson, and blatantly overrules
the simple historical principle that by and large
an account containing no demonstrable error should
be preferred over one containing demonstrable
error.
One last thing. Most of the people we're
talking about have descendants, many of whom take
some pride in their grandparents and
great-grandparents achievements. It is incumbent
on us to shatter that pride in the interests of
truth if we are sure we are proffering historical
fact. It is also incumbent on us not to blackguard
the memory of dead men's names with speculation in
the interests of some peculiar puzzle pattern that
takes out fancy. It is disgraceful when
irresponsible Kennedy buffs insist that innocent
living people are 'suspects' and their honest
accounts of who they are and why they were in
Dealey Plaza must be treated scptically because of
their suspect status. Let us not be equally
cavalie with the memory of the dead.
Love and kisses to anyone who's had the
patience to stay with me all this way.
Martin |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 03:35 pm | | | The fact that Anderson believed (as did Swanson) the Ripper died in an asylum is revealed in A.P. Moore-Anderson's memoir (1919) of his late father. Anderson died in 1918, Aaron Kosminski in 1919. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 04:36 pm | | Hi, Martin:
Thank you so much for your illuminating treatise on Sir Robert Anderson. I find it most helpful in trying to understand the type of man he was. It is interesting to note that as you say he was writing about the Jewish suspect in 1901, earlier than his Blackwood's article or his autobiography. Thank you once again for posting such a long and informative memo on Anderson.
Chris George |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 06:08 pm | | Hi All,
Let me add my voice to the chorus of thanks to Mr. Fido for such an informative post on Robert Anderson - I think you've certainly enriched our understanding of this key figure in the Ripper investigation.
>(It might help British readers if I
synopsised him as a sort of Gladstonian version of
Denis Healey: a parliamentary bruiser who nearly
became party leader and so carried immense
prestige, though his forte was aggressive partisan
oratory rather than original or subtle thinking or
perceptiveness. I'm sorry I don't know who could
be put forward as an American equivalent.)
FWIW, I nominate Newt Gingrich. Substitute the word "Congressional" for "parliamentary", and the description is spot-on.
>Love and kisses to anyone who's had the
>patience to stay with me all this way.
Could we settle for a handshake?
Jim |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 10:20 pm | | Fido posting on the same board as Nelson--right THERE my friends the case can be solved. DO IT.
David |
Author: Pete kemp
Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 07:37 pm | | Dear Martin,
A feast of info on Anderson. I shall digest it and ponder!!!!
Kemp( just an everyday chap! ) |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 06:51 am | | For those interested in research in Whitechapel, let me suggest that a copy of the 1891 census would be essential. At the end of August the complete 1891 census for London will be available for purchase from S&N Genealogy Supplies, Greenacres, Salisbury Road, Chilmark, Salisbury SP3 5AH. Phone 01722 716121, Fax 01722 716160 or webpage www.genealogy.demon.co.uk
If you order it now, its £34.95; after release it will be £69.
It will be a straight copy of the 200,000 plus images of the census pages and although street-indexed will not be surname indexed.
S&N have a lot of other useful CD data discs although it's worth knowing that some of them (such as Griffiths Valuation Index (Irish Land Records) can be got much cheaper by being bundled with family tree packages. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 08:11 am | | Thankyou Peter, got mine on order.
A little distressing that they may not publish an 1881 census, I would have liked a hard copy of all of London.
(Maybe we should lobby them?)
Assuming that our quarry was not from overseas, then isn't it a little aggravating that the 1881 census of London is quite possibly the only place left that actually has Jack's real name on it.........somewhere.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 01:31 pm | | Jon:
Of course there is the full transcription of the 1881 census available from the LDS for an incredibly small price but that isn't the actual pages from the enumerators books and it can be (understandably) inaccurate. For example you will have to think laterally to locate MJ Druitt.
However S&N Genealogy have said that they will publish every census back to 1841 in the same format so you just have to wait. And by January 2nd 2002 the 1901 census will be available on the internet. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 22 July 2001 - 08:36 pm | | Thanks again Peter, I have contacted LDS and am waiting their reply.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 07:02 am | | Just heard back from www.genealogy.demon.co.uk, I enquired why they state on their site that they will be producing all census from 1851 except the 1881 census, Nigel Bayley, the manager replied that it is specifically because the Church of the Latterday Saints have produced it and it seemed pointless to duplicate work.
(as pointed out by Peter, above)
Ok, off to sunny Florida for two weeks.
Regards, Jon
(still not heard back from LDS) |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 23 July 2001 - 08:22 am | | Hi Jon,
Unfortunately, we're not that sunny at the moment. Third day of rain, in fact. But perhaps by the time you get here the pattern will return to normal and we'll have only our short afternoon showers to break up the sun and heat of the day. If you are going to be anywhere near St. Pete Beach, feel free to give me a call. I'm in the book, as they say.
--John
Ally: This one can eventually go. |
|
|
|
|
