Archive through June 27, 2000

** 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 **

Archive through June 27, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion: Policemen... What did they know?: Policemen: What did they know? Part 3: Archive through June 27, 2000

Author: David M. Radka Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 08:53 pm
Jon, The first time I had sex was more than 22 years ago, and believe me, I remember EVERYTHING about it today. I mean EVERYTHING. I remember everything about the movie we saw beforehand, everything about her, every pore in her body, what she said, what I said, what we did, how the light looked in her room, how her mattress wasn't firm enough, how I snuck out before dawn before her parents woke up, and much, much more. And this was just a girl! Think about Anderson--he was dealing with Jack the Ripper, the greatest criminal in the history of civilization. I think he'd remember. David
Author: Jon Smyth Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 09:10 pm
I'm sure you do Dave, ....and if Jack had been Andersons only case in 22yrs, he'd remember it too :-) How do you account for the bits he got wrong? Jon
Author: Scott Nelson Monday, 26 June 2000 - 12:17 am
Hi Jon: We simply don't know what parts, if any he got wrong. There's just not enough data to interpret the scant statements made, although I've done my fair share of the interpretation. I think that both Anderson and Swanson probably had information that we don't have on their suspect, particulary on his days as a polish hospital employee (junior surgeon?). Also the possibility that he was forced to immigrate to London and seek a diminished form of employment as a boot and shoe maker, living in a squalor area with a young teen-aged son and daughter amist the deprivation of the Spitafields Market area. BTW, I thorougly enjoyed your essay on the dropping of Eddowes' apron in Goulston St., even though I think PC Harvey may have been the one to see the Ripper and Eddowes descend the Church St passage, they then going down after he returned. I know the timing is a a bit screwed up, but Harvey (and Watkins) may have been a little amiss in their estimate of the times.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Monday, 26 June 2000 - 03:37 am
Hi All, Just an idea: but I believe Davids question was how is it possible they let the witness of the identification go so soon, when they already knew they could not convict him since he was a lunatic. What if the suspect wasn't a lunatic. They coax, threaten the witness, but still he refuses. They still have to keep this suspect from the streets. What if the only solution was to declare a sane man insane? It would be natural that afterwards they would be as secretive as possible about this afterwards. Jill
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 26 June 2000 - 04:49 am
Jon:- I have no problem with the idea that Anderson wildly exaggerated an actual event, but I find it difficult to accept that Swanson was also an ego-driven self-deluder and I would find your proposition a little easier to accept if it was supported by other examples of Anderson wildly exaggerating actual events - revelations made elsewhere in his book appear to be true; "Jinks" had been a British informer, Anderson did write a Parnell Letter. Nevertheless, Anderson could have wildly exaggerated a real event and deluded himself into attaching significance to weak evidence. Equally, Anderson's assessment of an event about which we know next to nothing could have been correct. As Scott and David say, we have insufficient information on which to base our judgments. Jill:- I suppose that if the authorities really want something done, it gets done, and that it would be foolish to deny the possibility that a sane man could have been committed. Of course, it is equally possible that the suspect's family had him committed to put him beyond the reach of the law. Or even that the authorities, knowing (and maybe even perhaps relieved) that their hopes of a trial were dashed, recommended to the family that cmmittal would be the best course of action. Who knows!
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 26 June 2000 - 05:10 am
I think Jill's suggestion has some merit. Imagine the scenario. The family of Jack discover to their horror that one in their midst has committed the Whitechapel murders. He is sent to a convalescent home to ' recover ' , while the family decide what to do : the only solution is to have him committed , and hidden away from the world. The police are informed and a deal is done. To spare the family embarassment , the police agree to have the man put away secretly and thus the news will be kept out of the papers. Family honour is maintained. The police take their witness to the convalescent home , but he refuses to identify the murderer. Thus , faced with a dilemna , the police decide to act anyway and the murderer is committed to an asylum. He dies soon after. Could the WITNESS have been Kosminsky ? In fact , could the whole Jewish thing be a smokescreen to disguise the true identity of the madman ? ( its plausible in this scenario ) What about J.K. Stephen ?
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 26 June 2000 - 06:36 am
Simon:- In your scenario, how much of what Anderson and Swanson say would be true and how much would be smokescreen. For example, did the identification take place at the Convalescent Police Seaside Home? If it did, your suspect would presumably have had to have been a policeman if he was convalescent there. And if Kosminski was the witness, isn't it a remarkable coincidence that he ended up in an asylum at the same time (or later, depending on when it is thought the identification took place?
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 26 June 2000 - 07:19 am
Paul-The Convalescent home would be a mere seaside convalescent home for sick people , not the Police Convalescent Seaside Home at Hove. As for Kosminski ending up in an asylum too , perhaps he simply knew too much about who the Ripper was , and he might have talked. Hey , a NEW conspiracy theory !
Author: Harry Mann Monday, 26 June 2000 - 07:37 am
How was the information of the seaside home identification conveyed to Anderson and Swanson,as neither is likely to have been there in person.Was it an official or informal confrontation,and was the result relayed in oral or written form. As neither of the above named supply answers,it is not unreasonable to doubt their claim that the killer was known. In accepting the seaside home witness,Swanson is seemingly rejecting the Hutchingson sighting.This is surprising seeing that Aberline was convinced, and had conveyed his feelings to Swanson in written form together with Hutchinson's signed statement. Perhaps in Swanson's view loyalty to a senior officer overrode loyalty to a junior one,and having very little opinion of his own,elected to back Anderson. H.Mann
Author: Paul Begg Monday, 26 June 2000 - 08:26 am
Harry:- I am not sure that neither Anderson nor Swanson wouldn't have been present, but this takes us down avenues of speculation paved with uncertainties. For example, if 'the Seaside Home' does indeed refer to the Convalescent Police Seaside Home, then unless the witness was a convalescent policeman there, it looks an odd place to conduct an identfication (especially as Swanson says they had difficulty sending the suspect there) and one is tempted to therefore suggest that there was something confidential or undercover going on. If so, then it seems a reasonable postulation that the identification would have been conducted at a fairly senior level, possibly by Swanson, maybe by Anderson, perhaps by both. Either way, I am not sure why neither of them explaining how their information was received, at first-hand or via one or more people, casts doubt on their claim. As for Hutchinson, I would assume that 'evidence' subsequent to November 1888 invalidated Hutchinson's testimony as far as Anderson and Swanson were concerned.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Monday, 26 June 2000 - 08:51 am
Hi All, Simon Simon- I don't think the Police would only anonymously incarcerate JtR, just because his family requested it. To much honour or disgrace was at stake with this case for that. All- They would only keep it silent and secretive if they knew it was him, but had no direct evidence to nail him at court, and with family-connections that could provide him a good lawyer. If they then acted on this and faulty incarcerated him as a lunatic and made sure he would never be allowed to leave, this would definitely be called evading justice, since on trile he would be released. They could never openly confess how they caught JtR, but in their hearts at least they would know they kept this dangerous man from the streets and one of the main purposes of their job. Actually if this scenario would be true, they at least would have talked their suspect over with the prosecutor to find out if their evidence would be enough to get the guilty result. Who would have been the states-prosecutor? Who else would have been confided in, when such a situation as theorised would presented itself? They would keep the persons that even have only a part of such knowledge as few as possible. Who would surely be informed to perform such an evasion of justice? The highest possible chiefs of the Police department (Anderson, Swanson) The Detective who found the witness or clue The Prosecutor Director of the assylum? Family? I'm not so sure about the family though, perhaps they could have given them a smokescreen and convinced them easily that he really was insane. Greetings, Jill
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 26 June 2000 - 12:57 pm
Scott: The parts Anderson got wrong are evident in previous postes, even if you only take Martin's view as opposed to Pauls view. They both cannot be right, therefore Anderson was confused or missled, by erroneous info. I think Melvin has an opinion on this Anderson statement too, comparing what was written by all three authors (regardless of the private opinions of you & I), it is apparent that Anderson's statement does not fit the facts as they have come down to us. I also thought Harvey was the one who saw Eddowes & Jack (City PC in Mitre Sq) but I found it unlikely that the Inquest documents were incomplete as regards Harvey's statement. There appears to be no pages missing from his statement. Paul: You & I have been down this Anderson/Swanson road before, I'm asking the same questions, your giving the same answers. :-) Lack of sufficient info. is the bottom line throughout this case. Was it you who found a list of names in a register for the Seaside Home? It's a year or more since I saw it, and I think you (or someone) provided this info. We were talking about the witness & suspect and you (or someone) came up with several names who had registered in a specific year, as possibilities. I am glad to see you feel it is a strange place to have an I.D. especially when the centre of police operations were Scotland Yard, Leman St. & Old Jewery. So, if the witness was a convalescing PC, was the Seaside home for City or Met. PC's? How difficult can it be to find the name of a PC who was on duty in Oct '88 but at some point later was removed from duty to the Seaside Home? Jill: I agree with Simon, your idea is not without reason. Regards, Jon
Author: David M. Radka Monday, 26 June 2000 - 04:01 pm
Jon, I resent your suggestion that I've had sex only one time in my life. It is not true. Scott, Who do you have in mind as Anderson's suspect? I don't believe your description fits anyone I know. David
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 26 June 2000 - 08:48 pm
My sincere appologies Dave, I did not mean to open an old wound, I promise not to tell anyone, it'll be just our little secret.... :-) Jon
Author: David M. Radka Monday, 26 June 2000 - 09:02 pm
Jon, Well, at least I go out with women. David P.S. I'd like to recommend you to Mr. C-M DiGrazia, since the two of you would seem to have something in common.
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 26 June 2000 - 11:08 pm
Paul: Your suggestion above about the source of Anderson's info is a good point. The account does not read like Anderson was speaking from personal involvement. And if not Anderson, who was 'top dog', then surely Swanson would be present. But the same may be said of his marginalia, if he was present, would he have not been able to word it different? Abberline apparently was not there either, or if he was, he was not as struck as Anderson was about the suspect. Considering all those and other 'top brass' who should have been there, if indeed this was a 'major' event, strange how no-one else even hints at this one particular identification. Regards, Jon -------------------------------- Dave Yes, but how much do you have to pay?. :-) (you mean CMD has a passion for Brunette's?)
Author: Harry Mann Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 06:02 am
Paul, If there is doubt about the seaside home identification,it is because,to me,the source is so vague. Both Anderson and Swanson had the opportunity to disclose their knowledge of the incident,whether it was by personnel attendance or reports submitted,but neither did. If they had reasonable grounds to presume the killer's identity,it was their duty to disclose such,both to dispel the fears of the community,and to prove that police were able and efficient in their duties. In addition,I doubt that they would forgo the acclaim,in what was undoubtably the highest point of their career. In the case of Hutchinson,there is the physical evidence that a confrontation took place.If Swanson did receive information that made him disregard Abberline's assessment there is no record of such. I do not regard all speculation as wothless.If it raises a suspicion about a certain matter,then try to prove or disprove that suspicion.Not always easy,sometimes impossible,but sometimes worth a try. Having received just a formal education,I base my opinions on long years of experience.Anderson and Swanson would not be the first to claim victory out of defeat,even if it meant clouding the issue to do so. H.Mann.
Author: Jill De Schrijver Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 06:28 am
Hi Harry, I agree with you. But there's that little devil in my head saying, why two together, and both in such an obscuring manner-> a smokescreen or lying? Why a smokescreen when they would want to get as much honour as they could get? If they had to hide something that would be regarded as ignoring police and justice procedure, they would have a very good reason to be as obscuring as possible. All - Does anyone know to which prosecutor the investigators would be speaking, if certain suspicion was warranted, to ask advice about having enough evidence for their suspect? Jill
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 08:21 am
Harry & Jill:- I think it all comes down to understanding the source material. If Anderson was advancing a theory then one would expect him to at least outline the evidence and arguments upon which it was based. One would also be justified in being critical of him if he failed to do so. But Anderson was stating what he believed to be fact and having been in a position to know the facts he probably felt, and quite rightly felt, that his word could be accepted. Now, his primary concern was to demonstrate that unsolved crimes were rare and that the Ripper wasn't one of them and he gave a tolerably reasonable account. Swanson was adding some notes in pencil in the margins and on the end-papers of his copy of Anderson's autobiography. Why Swanson made these notes to himself isn't known, but he made notes in the margins of other books too, so it was evidently something he did. These notes were not intended for publication, of course, and were presumably only points of interest to him, so we shouldn't really be too demanding of what he could or should have said. In short, both men stated what they believed to be true. They didn't have to do any more than that. When Anderson recites that he took a flat in the home of a famous novelist, he didn't have to produce his rent book as proof. I know this isn't really a comparable example to claiming that the identity of the Ripper was known, although his claim that "Jinks" was a police informer most certainly is, but it serves to make the point. As for some of your other comments, much depends on when the identification took place. If Aaron Kosminski was the suspect then it was 1891. Secondly, the police would not have been at liberty to say that the Ripper had been caught unless there had been a trial and a conviction. Remember the furore when the Yorkshire police announced they'd caught the Ripper because he hadn't been tried or convicted! And the police files don't record much at all, especially about the Kelly murder, so there is no significance in the absence of material about Hutchinson. Jill:- I think the police would have sought the advice of their own solicitor or the government-appointed solicitor-general. Stewart Evans would have this information at his fingertips!
Author: Scott Nelson Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 11:15 am
Speaking of the date of the alleged Seaside Home identification, Stewart Evans, in his excellent dissertations essay, suggests that it may have taken place when Aaron was first brought to the Mile End Infirmary on 12 July 1890. I think the home was in Hove or Brighton, about 60 miles from London. Thus, it would have taken about one day by carriage. So Aaron is brought to the Infirmary in the morning, checked to ensure that he is fit to travel, and sent to the Home, where he arrives late at night. The next day (the 13th), the identification takes place (probably a prolonged process with much intermittent discussion and questioning between the police and the witness). The following day the suspect is returned to the Infirmary, checked out again and released back to the care of his brother. The problem with this sequence is that it is then suggested that the police watched Aaron for another 7 months or so until he was returned to the workhouse infirmary on 4 February 1891. Recall, only then did Jacob Cohen inform the Infirmary authorities that Aaron had threatened his sister with a knife, something I don't think he would have done if he knew he were being watched. So I think its probable, if Aaron were Anderson's suspect, that the identification took place between the two stints at the Workhouse Infirmary, possibly, in December 1890 or January 1891, given that " in a very short time the suspect...he was sent to Stepney Workhouse..." (Swanson). And in all likelihood the knife threat is what lead to his being taken for the identification in the first place, probably directly from his brother's house to a police station, then directly to the Seaside Home. One could also argue that the identification took place during the second stint at the Mile End from Feb. 4th to the 7th, but recall that Swanson's wording indicates that after the identification, the suspect was returned to his brother's house, watched for a short period of time, then sent to the Workhouse and then directly to the asylum.