Archive through March 16, 1999

** 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 March 16, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion: Policemen... What did they know?: Policemen: What did they know? Part 3: Archive through March 16, 1999

Author: Anonymous Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 03:58 pm
THE MANCHESTER EVENING NEWS (Page 3) THURSDAY OCTOBER 18, 1888 THE HOUSE-TO-HOUSE SEARCH The force of police in private clothes, especially selected to make the house-to-house search in the neighbourhoods of Hanbury-street, Commercial-street, Dorset-street, Houlston-street, Buck's Row, Brick Lane, Osborn-street, &c., completed their labours to-day. They have distributed many thousands of handbills, leaving them in every room in the lodging-houses. The greatest good feeling prevails towards the police and, noticeably in the most squalid dwellings, the police had no difficulty in getting information, but not the slightest clue to the murderer has been obtained.
Author: Anonymous Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 04:12 pm
THE TIMES (Page 7, col. 3) THURSDAY OCTOBER 18, 1888. THE EAST-END MURDERS. We are requested to publish the following:- Sir Charles Warren wishes to say that the marked desire evinced by the inhabitants of the Whitechapel district to aid the police in the pursuit of the author of the recent crimes has enabled him to direct that, subject to the consent of occupiers, a thorough house-to-house search should be made within a defined area. With few exceptions the inhabitants of all classes and creeds have freely fallen in with the proposal, and have materially assisted the officers engaged in carrying it out. Sir Charles Warren feels that some acknowledgement is due on all sides for the cordial cooperation of the inhabitants, and he is much gratified that the police officers have carried out so delicate a duty with the marked good will of all those with whom they have come in contact. Sir Charles Warren takes this opportunity of acknowledging the receipt of an immense volume of correspondence of a semi-private character on the subject of the Whitechapel murders, which he has been quite unable to respond to in a great number of cases; and he trusts that the writers will accept this acknowledgment in lieu of individual replies. They may be assured that their letters have received every consideration.
Author: Rotter Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 04:37 pm
Why thank you anonymous, you are obviously very well informed.
Author: Anonymous Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 05:51 pm
Thank you Rotter. The house-to-house search was initiated by Sir Charles Warren and the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, at the beginning of October whilst Anderson was still on leave. Henry Matthews stated to Charles Warren, "I thought my own suggestion of last Wed. more practical - take all houses in a given area which appear suspicious upon the best inquiry your detectives can make. Search all those, which the owners or persons in charge will allow you to search. Where leave is refused, apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, on the ground that it is probable or possible that the murderer may be there. If search warrants are refused, you can only keep the houses under observation. I shd. be glad now that the week is closing of a report of all the measures that have been taken for arresting the criminal, & of the results - Have any of the doctors examined the eyes of the murdered woman. Yrs truly H.M. I shall be very glad to hear whether Mr. Anderson's health has permitted him to resume his duties.-" At this time Anderson, as I said, was still away, so the idea of these actions had nothing to do with him. The actual house-to-house 'search' took place after his return.
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 06:55 pm
This all depends on what we mean by the term "house-to-house search." What were the police doing somewhat prior to the OFFICIAL house-to-house search? This would be immediately post-Chapman? Did they, does anyone think, get into some UNOFFICIAL activities of this dimension? David
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 07:17 pm
Hey! Anderson "knew he knew." That's what's key to the people who want to pursue Kosminski as a JtR suspect. What the term "knew he knew" means can be interpreted in only one way: Anderson was certain of guilt. The questions of how and on what evidence Anderson "knew" Kosminski was the murderer are open to interpretive answers. Swanson seems to add detail of the witness' reasoning behind why he refused to testify. Is Swanson interpeting what the witness' reasons were or do we have independent evidence that the witness did indeed decline to swear against Kosminski for the reasons Swanson states? Rotter has pounded the point until it can't be pounded any further. Where are the documents? Where is the evidence? But we have to ask these questions about all suspects and theories, NOT just this one! Some people feel Anderson has a good enough reputation to believe his statement should hold more weight than other statements and theories postulated by his contemporaries and people who came after him. Those people won't change their minds. They aren't forcing anyone else to believe something they don't want to believe. I personally think Anderson provides dubious reasoning and therefore dubious conclusions. I don't expect anyone to try to convince me I shouldn't believe what I believe about the sketchy details the whole story provides. I have been told countless times that I may be right in disbelieving, and perhaps for the reasons I've given. But I've also been told I could be wrong. I've got no quarrel with those two statements. The only thing that will settle this issue is evidence. Neither side has very much -- both sides interpret certain statements as being "evidence" in their favor. The question is not and never has been: Should we trust Anderson without further evidence? I think all sides to this "issue" would answer "No, we need more evidence." Anderson's supposed "credibility" is not the evidence we need and never will be. It is prejudicial -- used both in support of and against Anderson and, more importantly, his suspect. As long as Anderson's credibility is made a major factor in accepting Kosminski as a JtR suspect, the Kosminksi-is-JtR people will always be dodging accusations that question Anderson's credibility. Anderson becomes the issue instead of Jack the Ripper! Something is wrong with that equation, dontcha think? I'd rather focus on Kosminski than Anderson. No court in the world -- except the kind run by kangaroos or a Police State -- would accept Anderson's "certainty" as evidence against Kosminski. His "certainty" is merely a pointer for those so inclined to accept that, when we say "he knew he knew," it means that Kosminski is the first place to look for a JtR suspect. Others can, will, and should (if they are so inclined) disagree and seek for a suspect elsewhere, wishing their opposite numbers the best of luck. The deciding factor will always be evidence, evidence, and more evidence. Yaz
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 07:27 pm
How about a theorem instead of "...evidence, evidence, and more evidence"? What if the whole case could be made into a theorem? David
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 08:15 pm
Everyone would have to accept the premises in a theorem. Without evidence, no one agrees on the premises. Or is this a rhetorical question? If you can move this discussion off whether Anderson is 'one swell Joe' versus 'one stupid b*****d,' I'd welcome the change, if only for the sake of variety. Or I might be forced to ask why, if Anderson "knew he knew" -- and that equates to he had evidence of (Kosminski's) guilt -- he never brought charges and worried about libel suits in his later publications. But I'm not asking that! I digress. Pray, continue. I'm not here. You all only think I'm here. Yaz
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 23 February 1999 - 10:01 pm
I have a theorem, based on nothing but evidence. David
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 03:49 am
Me too. Love, Caroline
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 04:54 am
I have some questions. I have just been reading about Rose Mylett on the 'Victims' Pages (not the message boards). Is there anyone who thinks that Rose was murdered? (doesn't matter by whom for this purpose) If so, do they also believe Anderson was most likely to be right about Kosminski and everything that has been discussed here already? If any one person says yes to both, could they explain the contradiction that occurs to me? If I'm interpreting correctly, Anderson was so convinced that Rose died of natural causes (maybe choking on her stiff velvet collar), that he declared any other scenario to be so much stuff and nonsense, thereby contradicting the coroner, Wynne Edwin Baxter, which seems a trifle arrogant IMHO. Whose credibility do we go with here? I suppose Anderson could have been right and wrong in equal measure, and does this prove anything anyway? Sorry, I'm rambling again. Love to all, Caroline
Author: Anonymous Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 02:16 pm
Yes, I think that Rose Mylett was murdered. No, I don't think that Anderson was right, he was deluding himself, and couldn't face failure in any form. Anderson was pompous rather than arrogant, and dogmatic. As with many such people he had, also, his good points and was competent at his job. Most of us may be right and wrong, it's a human foible. No, I don't suppose it does prove anything.
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 04:20 pm
Thanks anon, hope to get some more replies to create a balance. I've realised that one or two points of view do not amount to all that much, sadly. I'm getting more depressed by the minute, when I find myself falling into the realms of opinion. Everyone has such different views of Victorian London: what poor women would stoop to in order to get their next gin, in order to forget the next client's sordid fumblings, in order to get a bed for the night, in order....ad nauseam. What did the men do for the same money eh? Live off said women? do an 'honest' day's work? Depends on your opinion of honest really. I'm off to bread and butter pudding, Ernest & Julio Gallo Ruby Cabernet, and Jasper Carrott. See ya, Caroline
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 04:20 pm
Thanks anon, hope to get some more replies to create a balance. I've realised that one or two points of view do not amount to all that much, sadly. I'm getting more depressed by the minute, when I find myself falling into the realms of opinion. Everyone has such different views of Victorian London: what poor women would stoop to in order to get their next gin, in order to forget the next client's sordid fumblings, in order to get a bed for the night, in order....ad nauseam. What did the men do for the same money eh? Live off said women? do an 'honest' day's work? Depends on your opinion of honest really. I'm off to bread and butter pudding, Ernest & Julio Gallo Ruby Cabernet, and Jasper Carrott. See ya, Caroline
Author: Yazoo Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 07:23 pm
Hey, All! I don't know if Mylett was murdered. Since I support Bond on the JtR case, it would be inconsistent to renounce him on this one. But Bond isn't consistent about Mylett as he is sent by Anderson to verify Brownfield and his own assistant, McKellar, "tentatively" does so, is sent back to "reconsider," changes his conclusions to death-by-natural-causes. Who sent Bond (first, Bond's assistant) in the originally? Anderson. Who sent him back? On what grounds was this reconsideration deemed necessary? What factors were identified that contributed to the vacillating opinon? Not explained in my source; maybe not known at all. Baxter's claim of interference in his bailiwick (Anderson's role in Bond's report) is consistent with my views on Anderson. However, there would be no contradiction in Anderson's mind -- which is where a lot of our current troubles reside. If he "knew" Mylett's death was naturally caused, his opinion obviously overrode Brownfield's, McKellar's, Bond's, and Baxter's opinions. Baxter got his verdict. But did the police ever bother to follow-up with an investigation and arrest? If there was no investigation, and Anderson controlled the resources for which cases were investigated, Anderson got his way. Still, take Anderson out of the equation and use him only as a pointer to a possibly good suspect, and look at what evidence there is against that suspect. So far, the only evidence we seem to be considering concerns Anderson. The longer we take arguing about our opinions of Anderson & Co., the less time we spend concentrating on finding out what we can about Kosminski. Kosminski is the focus. Anderson ceases to be the focus once you accept that he is qualified to nominate Kosminski as a JtR suspect. Anderson will forever be a problem if the only case against Kosminski rests on what Anderson "knew" -- things about which we know next to nothing -- and what Swanson and Co. wrote officially or unofficially. If Kosminski interests you as a suspect, do some research or follow other people's. If he doesn't interest you...I'd still do an occasional status check to see if more evidence hasn't been found that you'd find more persuasive. My opinion. Yaz
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 08:26 pm
Hi Yaz, I'll take the disguise off. I'm thinking Rose may well have been a JtR victim, so I'm treading the wrong board really. (It gets darn hard when all the subjects are so interelated, overlapping, call it what you will.) I was also thinking that poor Rose might be marked down as 'just another whore', if my evidence ends up showing she was part of Jack's handiwork, and I'm wondering even now whether I want to go down that road. If I were remembered for being a murder victim that would be bad enough. But to have my naked body paraded for all to see, and be remembered for being something I wasn't, that would not be fair dinkum. A bit like David implying you might be some sort of hippy high on dope half the time, heck, what does it matter, it doesn't make you a bad person etc etc. The 'label' did not sit easy on you, did it Yaz? I'm still not happy that you do not appear to have had an apology, perhaps I'm wrong, and it's already been sorted. If Frances Coles goes the same way, I may be out of here. Love, Caroline
Author: Yazoo Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 09:30 pm
Hey, Caroline! Your post concerns me. This seems as good a place as any to discuss what "value" any judgements we make about these people from 1888 has. I may be in the minority, but I don't think what our opinion of Anderson, Mylett, Eddowes, Swanson, or whoever matters against evidence and documentation. We're spending too much time arguing over whether Anderson is reliable, truthful, prejudiced, or the opposites. We're spending too much time dwelling on the wrong aspects of the very last actions of the victims, and perhaps forming conscious or unconscious value judgements about them accordingly. I've never liked the term "whore." Period. It is especially difficult to characterize the victims we've been discussing here as prostitutes if we fail to consider the gender bias, the economic condition, the high unemployment, all the economic/social factors that go into Artemis' topic of Living Conditions in 1888 Whitechapel. I remember reading Paul Begg's description of Annie Chapman in his Uncensored Facts and becoming very, very depressed. She worked whenever she could find work. She was desperately sick -- was probably sick enough to be termed "dying" -- albeit, slowly. She probably was trying to earn a very little bit of money from prostitution when she was killed. And in that moment, the killer ended her life and froze our image of her, like taking a picture. Only an idiot judges a person's character and value by a single picture -- a single frame of reference. But part of understanding a crime, or series of crimes, is victimology. The killer chooses a particluar type of victim or circumstances or something that triggers the killing response. JtR seems to have picked the most vulnerable and desperate of an already vulnerable and desperate subset of the Whitechapel/East End population. His choice frequently involved women trying to earn money through prostitution -- but also at dangerous times, in dangerous places. Their occupation or the last actions of their lives are only one piece of the whole. I think understanding how the victim got to be where she was, in order to explain/understand why she was killed -- rather than someone else, at another place, at another time -- is important. That's simply one view of the person, and it is a de-personalized version that helps us determine common factors that may point to the killer by the choices we may perceive him to be making. But this information is not important in deciding who that victim was...as a person; as a woman; as an 1888-era member of East End/London/English society. Each victim is considerably more than a victim, or a prostitute, or any such label. None of these women are prostitutes to me. They are victims first, because I would not know of them otherwise. Researchers have been filling in the details of their lives. As soon as I can read enough, I'd like to go back to Artemis' topic and start talking about conditions in 1888. I had and have no idea whether Mylett was a prostitute. It never occured to me that she might be. I don't really care if she was. I care if she was killed...but it doesn't look like we can determine that once Bond was asked to "reconsider" his "tentative" opinion. Same goes with Coles or any of the other victims. What they were doing in their last moments is an insignificant part of their lives -- it is unfortunately a crucial consideration in figuring out why, when, and by whom they were killed. As to the rest, no one owes me any apology. I prefer to live and let live if you are referring to David and myself. Yaz
Author: Caroline Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 05:34 am
Hi Yaz, You say things so much better than I do---sometimes! Going by what I �think� I know, our Jack may have had such a grand plan, that his victims were indeed very much singled out as a specific part of his series. (Nothing to do with masonic entrails over shoulders and suchlike sidetracking.) Although the �series� would have transcended other considerations, the selection process obviously had to take very much into account means, opportunity and every other possible way to ensure he would be able to slip away unaccosted into the night. In fact, if I�m not heading down a blind alley, Jack may have been one of very few serial killers who have managed to complete their series without interruption, living to �tell the tale� so to speak. What if he reverted to a �normal� respectable existence until the end of his natural? This would enable him to throw a few hundred �spanners� in the works, to muddy the waters further. Well he would, wouldn�t he? He�d be daft not to try if he was a bit of a sly old dog. Anyway, we shall see. My trusty librarian friend has got another five books on order for me, at the cost of �3 (Feldy take note!), and I await them all with baited breath. I am looking for the needle in the haystack, which will eliminate my suspect, but the haystack is growing with complete disregard for the rules of proportion at the moment. Love, Caroline
Author: Edana Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 08:46 am
Yaz, once again you have struck a chord. Your last message on this topic was so well stated, that I just had to say...Huzzah! Edana
Author: Ashling Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 09:21 pm
Hi everyone! Stephen, you may need to make this Part 4. In trying to understand who knew what on which occasions, I'm making a chart on the ranks within the Metropolitan Police. I'd greatly appreciate any & all assistance. Is the below accurate? Also: a) Which officer rank was the divisional head of CID? For instance who headed Division H during 1888 and 1889? b) Was Sergeant a rank supervising the beat P.C.s and Detective Sergeant an officer on the Detective force? c) Did the City Police have the same ranks or were any of their officers titled differently? P-O-L-I-C-E = METROPOLITAN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Charles Warren: 1886 - Nov. 8, 1888 James Munro: Dec. 3, 1888 - 1890 1. COMMISSIONER - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - James Munro: 1884 - Aug. 1888 Sir Robert Anderson: Aug. 1888 - 1901 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER = Head of CID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Melville Leslie Macnaghten: 1890 - 1903 3. CHIEF CONSTABLE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Melville Leslie Macnaghten: June 1889 - 1890 4. ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Donald Sutherland Swanson: 1896 - 1903 5. SUPERINTENDENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Donald Sutherland Swanson: Feb. 1888 - 1896 Frederick George Abberline: Dec. 1890 - Feb. 1892 6. DETECTIVE CHIEF INSPECTOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Frederick George Abberline: Feb. 1888 - 1890 7. 1ST CLASS INSPECTOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8. LOCAL INSPECTOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9. INSPECTOR - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10. SERGEANT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11. POLICE CONSTABLE = Beat Cop - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Thanks. Hope y'all have a great evening or morning, dependng on where you are. Take care, Ashling