|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Policemen: What did they know? Part 2
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Policemen... What did they know?:
Policemen: What did they know? Part 2
Author: Yazoo (1cust128.tnt3.det3.da.uu.net - 208.254.44.128)
Monday, 15 February 1999 - 10:02 pm |        | Hey, Jon!
Okay. Anderson didn't just imply the house-to-house search went on in his absence, he flat-out stated it!
I'd give Anderson the benefit of the doubt about Warren's statement as it could be seen as pro forma. But his own statement in the Oct 24th letter, "and that the residents show a marked desire to assist in every way," is pretty damning in it's self-contradiction to the article and book.
Man, what gives with this topic? I despair of ever getting a grasp on it.
I hope Paul or somebody can say why we should heed anything in Anderson's later writings...I certainly don't see why we should just from your posts alone, Jon. Corroboration from Swanson (or any other contemporary) can't solve Anderson's self-contradictions.
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 05:20 am | | Okay, here's a long one...
Yaz wrote: I hope Paul or somebody can say why we should heed anything in Anderson's later writings...I certainly don't see why we should just from your posts alone, Jon.
Yaz, as Rotter has already said, Anderson is an historical source and should be treated as we would treat any historical source, namely with care, understanding, and with a knowledge of the events the source describes. Said source must also be assessed: prima facie is it a good source? A first-hand source? Knowledgeable about the events it describes? Informed? Writing at the time of the described events (when the source may not have been in full possession of the facts or seeing the event onlyfrom his own perception) or sometime later (when he could be writing with the benefit of hindsight, with other input, or, on the downside, perceptions coloured by other accounts? Working this way gives you some sort of 'feel' for the reliability of the source. So, assess Anderson, the Assistant Commissioner, C.I.D., at Scotland Yard at the time of the investigation: he was intelligent, knowledgeable, informed, he may have witnessed the event he describes or at the very least received a first-hand an account of what transpired. There are a number of personality traits which you should weigh, plus comments made about him by others (though you should assess those comments in the context in which they were made). You might also like to take into account his morality, as revealed in his numerous writings, not the least his many religious books. And on top of all this, scan his work for references to other similar revelationary statements and see if they are fabrications or truths (such as his statement to have written the Parnell letters - he did - and the even more astonishing admission that the organiser of the Jubilee Plot to assassinate Queen Victoria was a British informer - he was).
My opinion on the matter can be expressed no more clearly than the conclusion given in the A to Z and based on extensive reading of Anderson's theological and penological writings (neither of which do I recommend for the seaside or bath): '…he had a peculiarly scrupulous regard for the truth and would never have lied directly, though when he thought anti-social criminals were involved he was prepared to mislead with half-truths or mental reservation (as he did before the Parnell Commission). His statement' about the Ripper's identity are far too direct to fall under this heading.'
But having done all this, the real core question is very, very simple: did the dentification described by Anderson take place? If you think it did, then you should heed and try to make some coherent sense out of what he says. If you think it didn't then Anderson is lying - there is no other word for it - and you should attach no importance to his account and should treat everything he says with extreme caution. Mind you, you'll have to convincingly demonstrate that Anderson lied, rather than made a few errors of detail.
Sorry to have been so egg-suckingly long-winded.
Jon Smyth wrote: In 'Blackwoods' magazine Anderson… goes on to imply that his 'suspect' came from a result of those [house-to-house] searches. D. Radka agreed: 'Right, Jon. The search was made in 1888 and produced no
results. Kosminski was picked up years later, and the implication Anderson gave as to what generated the pick-up was the search. It doesn't make sense, does it?'
Anderson actually says no more than that the search resulted in conclusions being reached and that those conclusions were ultimately proved correct. In my opinion, Anderson does not allow us to infer - and we should not infer - that the arrest was in any way connected with the search.
The only possible allowable inference that I can see is that following the search attention was focused on Polish Jews (which may indeed have been the case - Joseph Isaacs) and this in turn drew the suspect to the attention of the Police. But given that we are dealing (probably) with an arrest made in 1891, I doubt this inference would be justified. Indeed, had this been the case then the perceptive abilities of the Police would have been deserving of high praise, which would surely have been noted by Anderson, who didn't note anything of the sort.
The comparison between Kosminski and Cohen, leading to the conclusion that the police could have confused two men is essentially the 'confusion hypothesis' advanced by Martin Fido in his book The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper and one may imagine that it has been the topic of considerable discussion between us. My view is that while confusion is possible, the evidence upon which confusion is postulated is slender in the extreme. Let me first address one or two small points raised by Jon Smyth:
Swansons notes: - Suspect was also a Jew. [Cohen & Kosminski]. - Suspect sent to Seaside Home with difficulty, [Colney Hatch, restrained, - Cohen].
Colney Hatch was a mental hospital, not in any sense a 'Seaside Home' - and being located in a suburb of London it would not have been described as such. 'Seaside Home' clearly refers to a place located at the seaside and therefore a convalescent home. If by 'the Seaside Home' Swanson actually mean 'a seaside home' then it could apply to Cohen. But if 'the Seaside Home' meant the Convalescent Police Seaside Home - as I personally think there is no real cause to doubt - then it cannot apply to Cohen because Cohen was dead before it opened. Indeed, he was dead before the property had even been acquired for that purpose.
Shortly sent to Stepney Workhouse (if Mile End is meant then this is Kosminski / if Whitechapel is meant, then this is Cohen) and then to Colney Hatch and died. [Cohen].
Stepney Workhouse fits neither Kosminski not Cohen. But I am given to understand that the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, which means that when Swanson wrote, Mile End Old Town was in Stepney and had been for nine years or more. Whitechapel was not absorbed by Stepney until after Swanson was dead and Whitechapel Workhouse, to which Cohen was sent, could not have legitimately been described by him as Stepney. Either 'Stepney Workhouse' fits either man or it {only fits Kosminski.
Aaron Kosminski actually fits everything Anderson says with the exception that his medical notes do not convey the impression of a homicidal maniac and Aaron Kosminski has in consequence been often described as a 'harmless lunatic'. Of course, one might care to observe that the surviving medical records are little more than terse bi-annual statements of Kosminski's physical health; that apart from a short note at the time of his committal do not describe any of his delusions or anything he ever said; that they refer in the main to his behaviour and appearance in 1891, not in 1888; that serial killers do not necessarily betray signs of being serial killers when in prison or the asylum; and that suspicion of being Jack the Ripper is not likely to have fallen on a 'harmless lunatic'.
Any doubts that Aaron Kosminski was the man meant by Anderson may also be removed by the fact that Anderson refers to his suspect as 'a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentonable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the beast'. Macnaghten refers to 'Kosminski's 'solitary vices', and Aaron Kosminski's medical records refer to his self-abuse. Pending arguments to the contrary, I have always considered this to be pretty strong confirmatory evidence that Aaron Kosminski was the man all three policemen had in mind. It might be useful to note: 'the unfortunate children who are discovered in the practice are regarded by their discoverers as having sunk to the lowest moral depths', Lawson Tait, 'Masturbation', Medical News, 53, July 1888)
Cohen does not fit or is not known to fit all the details provided by Anderson. He is not known to have lived in the heart of the murder district, he is not known to have had 'people' (i.e., a nuclear family), and he is not known to have exhibited 'unmentionable vices'.
Kosminski also fits all Swanson's details, with the exception of dying soon after committal to Colney Hatch. Cohen fits hardly any of the details furnished by Swanson. Cohen couldn't have been taken to the Seaside Home (assuming it to be the establishment in Brighton because he died the month before the property was purchased. Cohen could not have been returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel because Cohen had no known next of kin. Cohen was not and could not have been sent to Stepney Workhouse. And on the matter of restraint, the suspect's hands being tied behind his back is more consistent with Kosminski, who was taken to the workhouse by his family, that it is with Cohen who was under Police arrest and no doubt formally restrained with handcuffs or a straight-jacket.
In the main, then, we have only two statements which are 'wrong', the main one being that Aaron Kosminski did not die soon after committal (Cohen did, if you count nine months as 'soon after). The other is that Anderson indicates that identification took place after committal, Swanson clearly states that it took place before committal.
On the latter point, since committal to an asylum effectively removed the possibility of prosecution, in saying that the suspect was identified in the asylum, Anderson avoided having to explain why no prosecution was brought. In fact, he sought to offer an explanation for this by implying that there was no prosecution because the witness refused to testify. However, given that a committed lunatic was deemed unfit to plead, no prosecution could have been brought and the witness's willingness or unwillingness to testify testimony was immaterial. This all points to the 'in the asylum' statement by Anderson being wrong.
And so on and so on. But I have written enough. Work beckons. |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 05:46 am | | | I have one quick question-what are the "powers of the French police" that would have ensured a prosecution, according to Anderson? |
Author: Paul Begg (212.250.196.93 - 212.250.196.93)
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 06:53 am | | Hi Rotter
On page 144 of The Lighter Side of My Official LifeAnderson says "...it sometimes happens that the murderer is known, but the evidence wholly wanting. In such circumstances the French Police would arrest the suspected person, and build up a case against him at their leisure, mainly by admissions extracted from him in repeated interogations.'
Anderson was somewhat obsessed with this issue, not so much, I think, because he desired the powers of the foreign police, but because he resented unfavourable comparisons between the British and foreign forces, these comparisons not taking into consideration the restrictions under which the British police had to work. As he wrote elsewhere: 'When I speak of efficiency some people will exclaim, "But what about all the undetected crimes?" I may say here that in London at least the undetected crimes are few. But English law does not permit an arrest save on legal evience of guilt, and legal evidence is often wholly wanting where moral proof is complete and convincing.' (Criminals and Crime 1907, pg. 81).
The French police possessed considerably greater powers than tier British counterparts. They could arrest people without need to justify it (as Anderson says), force entry without a warrant, there was no proceedure corresponding to habeus corpus, they could unlaefully detain suspects and even use violence to obtain a confession.
"the Paris prefect of police...can at any time, at his own discretion and upon his own authority and responsibility, and in the absence of any formal charge or evidence that a crime has been committed, and without the sanction of any judicial authority, issue warrants, keep people under arrest for unlimited periods, conduct interrogations, and inquiries, order houses to be searched, confiscate letters in the post, hand people over to the machinery of justice, release them or deliver them to a lunatic asylum.' (Philip, John Stead, The Police of Paris, London: Staples Press, 1957.
It is Anderson's reference to the powers of the French police which suggests that the suspect had not already been committed at the time of the identification. Reading between the lines, Anderson seems to be saying that they knew who the Ripper was but couldn't hold on to him because the witness wouldn't play ball.
It has seemed extraordinary to some commentators that the police would not have found some pretext for holding a positively identified suspect, yet such was the morality of men such as Anderson and such were the rules that governed British policing at that time that it is not really in the least bit surprising. One need only look at the agonies of indecision they went through when trying to decide whether or not to authorise warrant-free searches of houses in Whitechapel. |
Author: Yazoo (1cust43.tnt4.det3.da.uu.net - 208.254.47.43)
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 07:00 am | | Hey, Paul!
Anderson may have forgotten when he was away in regard to the house searches. That's one reason for the error/contradiction in the article/book.
But he writes in praise of local cooperation in a minute attached to a contemporary letter, and later writes or implies that he did not receive the kind of cooperation he praised in the minute.
I doubt he could have forgotten the minute or the cooperation he praises. He either changed his mind or wrote that stuff about the "low-class Polish Jew" to make his point for why the police didn't get Kosminski during the searches.
If he changed his mind, it's less likely he would have NOT remembered being around during the searches as he would have no memories/impressions to change.
The other alternative, he forgot everything he said, did and knew in 1888, and described something differently -- apparently to bolster his point, and maybe his case against the suspect -- is far less pleasant. If he reconstructed a forgotten reality, how much of that reconstruction is still true and valid; how much is self-serving? Finally, can we be sure he DID simply forget his original position and isn't purposely reconstructing 1888 reality...for whatever reasons?
Anderson leaves us little info on the suspect, the time and the place, to support or contradict his story. So we're in a position to believe him or call him a liar. If it wasn't for Jon's pointing out the self-contradictions, I would have given ANderson the benefit of the doubt. Now I'm not so sure I should.
Those are the questions and issues that Jon's posts leave with me.
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg (p38-nightjar-gui.tch.virgin.net - 194.168.70.98)
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 08:05 am | | I'm offended by that banner at the top of this page and will never ever buy a book from Amazon ever again. Insensitive, charmless nurks :-)
Yaz, Anderson does not say that the immigrant population was uncooperative. All he says is that the murderer either lived alone or he lived with people who, if they knew of his guilt, protected him.
To those of us with detective skills honed on Cagney and Lacey and Columbo this might seem an elemetary deduction - almost a case of 'stating the bleeding obvious', as Basil Fawlty once cuttingly observed of Sybil - and indeed Anderson acknowledges that 'One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes' to work it out. Anderson then goes on to say that the conclusion they reached was that the muderer was a certain low-class Polish Jew because those people 'will not give up one of their number to gentile Justice.'
Now, while I grant you that not handing a criminal over to the police could and no doubt should be deemed obstruction, I don't think that's what Anderson meant. I think Anderson was really saying that while any half-way decent, stiff-upper-lipped English family would have handed over their most beloved kith-and-kin if they thought him the Ripper, an East European immigrant wouldn't. And he may have been right, but whether he was or not is another issue. What Anderson was not saying was that the immigrant population as a whole was otherwise obstructive. There is a clear distinction and once appreciated the perceived contridiction vanishes.
And isn't this simpler that trying to do mental gymnastics over whether Anderson forgot this, remembered that, deliberately concocted something else... As Rotter said: 'in a popular memoir every phrase did not need the analytic hardness of a proposition from Wittgenstein'.
As for the house-to-house search not taking place while Anderson was abroad, this was first said by Phil Sugden and I think we (that is "Begg et al") found evidence that it wasn't true. I'll dig it out and post it if I can find it amid all the stuff produced for the last update. In fact, it may even already be in the A to Z somewhere.
Cheers! |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 01:25 pm | | Hi Paul,
You can read the banner two ways, does the confusion exist before or after reading Sugden?
Bob |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 01:38 pm | | Anderson said -
" Something of the same kind happened in the Ripper crimes. In two cases of that terrible series there were distinct clues destroyed - wiped out absolutely - clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin.
In one case it was a clay pipe. Before we could get to the scene of the murder the doctor had taken it up, thrown it into the fire-place, and smashed it beyond recognition.
In another case there was writing in chalk on the wall - a most valuable clue; handwriting that might have been at once recognised as belonging to a certain individual. But before we could secure a copy, or get it protected, it had been entirely obliterated." - The Daily Chronicle, September 1, 1908.
Mmm, mistaken, forgetful, confused, or prevaricating? |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 01:57 pm | | Your point?
If you really want to make a case about Anderson being mistaken, forgetful, or confused, why not cite from the same source: 'I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility...' Harcourt was not Home Secretary at the time of the Ripper crimes or at any time thereafter.
But does that mean that Anderson is lying? Does it mean that he never said anything to the Home Secretary? Prima facie Anderson was referring to the conference he had with Home Secretary Henry Matthews on his return from abroad, as described in The Lighter Side... That he named the wrong Home Secretary does not mean that the incident being recalled did not take place.
The bottom line is not that Anderson was 100% correct in every detail of everything he ever wrote or told a newspaper journalist, but whether or not the core episodes he described took place. |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 02:00 pm | | Anderson said - "'Great' crimes are seldom 'undetected', but of course it is one thing to discover the author of a crime, and a different matter altogether to obtain legal evidence of his guilt. And in this country the evidence must be available when an accused person is placed under arrest. Not so in countries where the police are armed with large despotic powers which enable them to seize a criminal without any evidence at all, and to build up the case against him at leisure, extracting the needed proofs, it may be, from his own unwilling lips." - Criminals and Crime, 1908.
"We permit hereditary criminals, men who are criminals both by nature and by habit, to beget children to follow in their steps." - Criminals and Crime, 1908. |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 02:09 pm | | Anderson said - "When I speak of efficiency [of the C.I.D.] some people will exclaim, 'But what about all the undetected crimes?' I may say here that in London at least the undetected crimes are few. But English law does not permit of an arrest save on legal evidence of guilt, and legal evidence is often wholly wanting where moral proof is complete and convincing. Were I to unfold the secrets of Scotland Yard about crimes respecting which the police have been disparaged and abused in recent years, the result would be a revelation to the public. But this is not my subject here." - Criminals and Crime 1908.
"In all ordinary cases where a person is accused of crime there is no moral doubt that he committed the offence charged, and the only question open is whether legal evidence is forthcoming to ensure his conviction." - Criminals and Crime 1908. |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 02:29 pm | | Anderson boasted - "But, whatever the reason, Lushington never gave me any help in my official work; and when Mr Monro left Scotland Yard I was thrown on my own resources to an extent unknown by my predecessors in the office. Naturally I made some grave mistakes. But no man is fit to be head of the C.I.D. if he is not clever enough to make mistakes without being caught! And I can boast that I never incurred a word of censure for a single one of my errors; and in one instance - it was a matter that cost me much distress and some searchings of heart, for it related to the safety of the Queen - I had a letter of thanks from the Home Office!
Though I was never detected when in the wrong, I was occasionally censured when in the right." - The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 02:35 pm | | | So, you've read Anderson. Most of these are well-known quotes, Anonymous. Is there a point you are trying to make? If so, could you be prevailed upon to make it? Thanks. |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 03:44 pm | | The Whitechapel Murders
At the present stage of the inquiry the best reply that can be made to the Secretary of State's request for a report upon these cases is to send the accompanying copy of detailed reports prepared by Chief Inspector Swanson, who has special charge of the matter at this office.
I wish to guard against its being supposed that the inquiry is now concluded. There is no reason for furnishing these reports at this moment except that they have been called for.
That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime. The result has been to necessitate our giving attention to innumerable suggestions, such as would in any ordinary case be dismissed unnoticed, and no hint of any kind, which was not obviously absurd, has been neglected. Moreover, the activity of the Police has been to a considerable extent wasted through the exigencies of sensational journalism, and the action of unprincipled persons, who, from various motives, have endeavoured to mislead us. But on the other hand the public generally and especially the inhabitants of the East End have shown a marked desire to assist in every way, even at some sacrifice to themselves, as for example in permitting their houses to be searched as mentioned at page 10 of the last report.
The vigilance of the officers engaged on the inquiry continues unabated.
R. Anderson
Oct 23/88" |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 04:01 pm | | | Anderson said - "I am to say on your account and quite satisfied on my own that we have few criminal 'show places' in London. Of course, there is the Scotland Yard museum that visitors consider one of the sights, and then there is Whitechapel. But that's all. You ought to see Whitechapel. Even if the murders had not taken place there it would be still the show part of the city for those who take an interest in the dangerous classes. But you mustn't expect to see criminals walking about with handcuffs on or to find the places they live in any different from the other dens of the district. My men can show you their lodging houses and can tell you that this or that man is a thief or a burglar, but he won't look any different from anyone else." The interviewing journalist, R. Harding Davis, suggested that he had never found they looked any different from anyone else. "Well, I only spoke of it because they say, as a rule, your people [Americans] come over here expecting to see dukes wearing their coronets and the thieves of Whitechapel in prison-cut clothes, and they are disappointed. But I don't think you will be disappointed in the district. When a stranger has gone over it he takes a much more lenient view of our failure to find Jack the Ripper, as they call him, than he did before." - August 1889. |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 04:12 pm | | Anderson noted - "This case [the Coles murder] was reported to me in the middle of the night & I gave authority to send Supt Arnold all the aid he might rquire. The officers engaged in investigating the former Whitechapel murders were early on the spot, & every effort is making [sic] to trace the criminal. But, as in former cases, he left nothing, & carried away nothing in the nature of property, to afford a clew."
RA
13/2/1"
[February 13, 1891] |
Author: Anonymous
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 04:35 pm | | | "None of this entitles us to dismiss Sir Robert as an arrant liar. A competent police chief, he was valued and respected by many of his colleagues, and he did not invent Kosminski. Why, then, did he write so misleadingly about him? We can but speculate. That irritating sense of self-importance detected by Churchill suggests part, but only part, of the answer. I incline to the belief that Anderson's errors of interpretation stemmed not from a wilful intent to deceive but from wishful thinking, that what he was doing was interpreting his memories of Kosminski in exactly the same way that Warren and Abberline had interpreted their clues on Jacob Isenschmidt in 1888. They had found themselves propelling the mad pork butcher to the gallows because of the public clamour for a conviction. The pressures upon Anderson, though different, were productive of similar results." - Philip Sugden, 1994. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 16 February 1999 - 07:00 pm | | Hey, All!
Bring back IP addresses if we're to be bombarded with irrelevent book quotations.
And I do NOT see this my participation in this discussion as a means to belittle or castigate Paul Begg or even Anderson. Let's keep the personalities out of it, shall we?
I'd like to stick strictly to what Anderson says...in his book/memoir, and in the corroborative material such as Jon quoted. We'll deal with other people's opinions later -- it's clouding the issues right from the start if we are not completely clear on what Anderson says.
While these posts can get long, I'd ask for patience (or just skim!). It's obvious that even the most belabored point is totally ignored sometimes. I work stuff out one step at a time.
So.......
Come on, Paul. We're playing it coy if you say, Yaz, Anderson does not say that the immigrant population was uncooperative. All he says is that the murderer either lived alone or he lived with people
who, if they knew of his guilt, protected him. Do you call that cooperation? You later seem to agree it's an accusation of obstruction...maybe carefully worded, or de-emphasized...but it's there. We can't gloss over why it's it there -- or what purpose it serves Anderson as he tells this little story.
And if you say this: I think Anderson was really saying that while any half-way decent, stiff-upper-lipped English family would have handed over their most beloved kith-and-kin if they thought him the Ripper, an East European immigrant wouldn't. And he may have been right, but whether he was or not is another issue. What Anderson was not saying was that the immigrant population as a whole was otherwise obstructive. There is a clear distinction and once appreciated the perceived contridiction vanishes. Then we're back to my point about prejudice against a certain subset of, in this case a sub-subset, of the population. Whether Anderson may be right is one of the issues. We don't know he's right, and more importantly, Anderson can't and doesn't try to prove he is right. His minute to the Oct. 24th letter indicates he felt differently at the time of the searches. Why does his opinion change...or, if you prefer, get clarified....in his article/book in light of his unnamed suspect?
As to the elementary deductions...is Anderson's deduction one that even Basil Fawlty would make? Based on what evidence? We have no evidence to support Anderson's "deduction" and neither does Anderson, Bond, Abberline, et al More importantly, Anderson refuses to even try to provide any evidence...and blows us all off with the wise-crack about "not having to be Sherlock Holmes..." Anderson may have got his "deduction" from Bond's "profile" -- not long after the searches were made. At least Bond admits he was speculating.
To me, it is clear that Anderson is setting up his readers of his article/book all the relevent little details that would support his mention of the "low-class Polish Jew" suspect. I fully accept someone might characterize this all differently. If you want the bottom line, go to the bottom few lines of this note.
Let me be clear: none of this discounts Kosminski (and/or whoever else somebody wants to "prove" was the suspect). But fairness must rule here against Anderson's method of presenting this suspect.
1) He brings irrelevent, potentially erroneous, certainly unprovable, and I think prejudicial demographic descriptions to explain why the house searches failed -- specifically citing the "low-class (Polish inserted in the book) Jews" as being obstructive.
2) He is clever not to make the accusation explicit enough to find these "low-class (Polish) Jews" but it is definitely implicit -- Anderson uses his literary "talent" to plant prejudice against his suspect.
3) He makes a false statement about his whereabouts when the search was conducted. It is unclear to me whether you agree with this, Paul, or have different evidence.
4) He contradicts himself as to the level of cooperation any group in the East End provided his police (from the Oct. 24th letter).
5) He does not state when and how and where the suspect was captured or found.
6) He does not quote the witness -- he states the results and again provides us with his interpetation (or "diagnosis" to use his own term) of why the witness acted as he did...again, without any supporting evidence or proof.
7) The reason Anderson gives for the witness' refusal brings us right back to Anderson's starting point about Jews -- whether he meant religious affliliation, race, whatever. He is looking for reasons (excuses, to the nasty among us) as to why the searches failed, why this suspect is JtR, and why he wasn't prosecuted.
It's all a pretty tidy package once Anderson is through, with almost nothing of substance to check or verify.
Whether you characterize what's going on in the article and book as lying, bad memory, whatever...it doesn't make a difference. Anderson tells us there was a suspect and a witness, and that both were Jews, and that the suspect was confined in an asylum. That's all we can say at this point.
I don't like the way Anderson presented this information. It isn't fair, it isn't bursting with facts (and for whatever reason, I don't think it was meant to be), it wouldn't make me proud of myself if I wrote such a thing nor would it make me proud of my police force to read it. I think Anderson manipulates prejudice to bolster his case...and his own personal prejudice may be nothing more than a policeman who is morally certain he has his suspect, evidence and due process be damned.
Bottom Lines:
The pertinent hints as to facts (suspect, witness, asylum) do not seem to be in dispute....and I'm only speaking of what Anderson says. Let's deal with other people's statements and testimony next.
So what Anderson is doesn't matter (fine man, good husband, good policeman, lying dog, goof, conspirator (about what I shudder to guess at this point) whatever) -- it's just your own opinion...Paul's, mine, Rotter's, Jon's, David's, Anonymous', whoever.
Is that satisfactory to everybody? If it is, is this the logical point to bring in Swanson's marginalia?
Yaz |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 12:15 pm | | Felt the need to start a part 3 to this subtopic as this Part 2, was taking too long to load.
Jon. |
Author: Carl Dodd
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 03:34 pm | | All too often, one police officer will tell another officer, in good faith, about something which turns out to be wrong. Anderson was at the top of the chain of command. That means that officers below him would have been giving him the information about suspects and such. I can see Anderson asking, "Was Kosminski the Ripper suspect and what happened to him?" Anderson's secretary or representative would have gone and asked around at the precinct where the main group of officers worked. I can see Anderson's representative saying, "Was Kosminski the Ripper suspect?" I can see one of the officers saying, "Yeah! It was Kosminski who we thought was the Ripper." I can see Anderson's representative saying, "What ever happened to Kosminski?" I know that a cop, taking a drink of tea or coffee, would have said, "I think that Kosminski died in a lunatic hatch back in 1893..." So, Anderson gets bad information back and puts out bad information which says that Kosminski died when he, Kosminski, was still alive. Anderson probably believed that what he had been told was right but it was wrong.
Another point which I see which might interest some of you.... Imagine, if you will, that somebody really had seen JtR. What would the police want to do with such a witness? Well, one thing that policemen tend to do is protect the witness. To do that, an officer might move the witness, in some cases out of town to a place where he can safely put the witness. In those days, a home for retired policemen would have been a really nice place to "shelve a guy." Shelving is a slang phrase for safely housing a witness so that you can use them later to your advantage. Speaking of advantage.... Would you want anybody to know that you had a witness who might be able to identify a killer? Not if you were smart. It is not unusual for police officers to keep some witnesses and/or evidence back so that only they know who or what is available. Many times you'll hear a detective say, "We know we got the right killer because he knew things that only the real killer would have known..." The killer gave up information that the detectives or officers had put back on their own for confirmation purposes. This is the same thing that probably happened with the JtR case. A witness was shelved, evidence was saved for confirmation purposes and the press was not told about either. |
|
|
|
|
