|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 3
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Policemen... What did they know?:
Policemen: What did they know? Part 3
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 11:31 am |        | Another tremendous post by Mr. Nelson.
Truly, pure Ripperlogical nitro-glycerine flows in this man's veins.
David |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 12:14 pm | | Hello Everybody,
I wonder if the following ideas, regarding the apocryphal tale of the recalcitrant witness, are pertinent.
In the first instance, if the suspect was obviously mad, would it not be a minor matter for the authorities to commit him post haste to Colney Hatch in 1888 as opposed to 1891.
Also if it was felt that the suspect truly was the killer, would some form of official record not be made and inserted into the official police file. Something, in a neat copperplate, stating the person's name, age, residence, and ultimately, the justification for the blame.
Some of the views that I've noted on this board lead me to conclude that some posters are confusing Judaism with Freemasonry! (Insert happy face here). If the witness was so orthodox and so genuine one of two denouements would result.
1. He would discuss the matter, in a metaphysical manner no doubt, with his Rabbi. The Rabbi would, in no uncertain terms, advise the fellow to tell the police everything that he knew and had seen.
2. The police would visit the Rabbi and ask for his help in facilitating the views of the witness.
Finally, if the situation did occur as stated, it would reverberate cataclysmically around the walls of Scotland Yard. Something of this nature would have been the break that the police desired and, I have no doubt, the news would have travelled straight up the chain of command. I believe that Sir Charles Warren had some connexion with the Chief Rabbi of the time, though age and Cabernet rob me of the facts, and it would seem only reasonable that a high level request would be used as a basis for persuading the witness to testify.
It really does seem hard to believe that the police would be so accomodating to the wishes of one miserable Jew. I imagine that he would have been harried and pressurised to testify, especially after subsequent murders, right up until Cole's death in 1891 when it seems that the file was tacitly closed. Perhaps this demonstrates the English sense of fair play. Or perhaps it demonstrates something far more serious. Either way, dear reader, you pays your money and you makes your choice.
Thanking you for plodding through and trusting you are all well.
Jim Leen |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 06:22 pm | | Jim - Warren's connection with Herman Adler, the
Acting Chief Rabbi, was that Adler thanked him
publicly for his role in stamping out anti-Semitic
feeling after the "double event" and Goulston
Street writing. I'm afraid the rest of this
board's discussion is taking place at a higher
mental level than my own, so I shan't comment on
an otherwise fascinating discussion.
David - I will probably regret asking (and I think
I know the answer), but what do
you think I have in common with Jon other than a
passion for the Ripper case?
And no, Jon - I like tall, icy redheads.
CM |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 09:49 pm | | C-M,
Yellow teeth.
David |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 10:13 pm | | (whew)
Your on your own with that one CM :-)
I'm glad I never went to that conference, I'd hate to give Dave any amo to use on me :-) |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 10:41 pm | | *yawn*.
Lovely, Mr Radka. And quite boring. Weren't you
ever taught it is rude to make personal comments?
Go back and finish solving the Ripper case, if you
can.
Jon - despite the above, the Conference was quite
entertaining, as I'm sure Paul or Chris George
could tell you. Perhaps you'll be able to come to
the one in 2002 (tentatively scheduled for
Baltimore).
And apologies to others here for this interim bit
of juvenilia. I really don't know what David
Radka has against me, but there it is.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 27 June 2000 - 11:42 pm | | I'm sure he has nothing against you CMD.
Maybe we can step back prior to the recent juvenalia and persue the questioning of Andersons recollections, 22 years after the fact.
Certain statements that were raised by a few (Paul & Martin for 2) indicate Anderson got details wrong due to poor info or poor memory.
Much has been made of what he said and yet it is not standing up to scrutiny. Paul relies on one interpretation for the Kosminski theory. Martin relies on another for Cohen.
We have all raised side issues which are reasonable, and given the scarcity of information about the Identification, time?, place?, attendees?....it appears to me that Anderson was relating a story, one that he was not personally involved in. Nor was Swanson involved. So, what value is this 'Identification' considering there were many I.D.'s going on at the time, for various reasons, the first I recall (at the moment) being Pizer's.
Was Anderson confusing events?
(For any of you who work for a superior, how often do you support a statement made by that superior, knowing in general he/she is right, but as to some specific detail, he/she is wrong)
I know the Swanson marginalia was never meant to be seen by the public, but then why would Swanson bother to mark it up anyway?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 01:15 am | | | Reagarding the requirements for prosecution, the police adviser and assistant on prosecution matters is/was the Director of Public Prosecutions, who works under the superintendence of the Attorney General. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 01:16 am | | | Sorry for the typo, that should be 'Regarding,' it's early! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 03:20 am | | Hi Stewart,
Thank you very much for the requested information. Does anybody know the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General during the period of the horror crimes of Whitechapel and during the alleged identification?
Lovely greetings
Jill,
PS - I think I have to stay clear for my own safety from CM, exception on 'icy' not withstanding :-) |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 05:12 am | | Jim:- As far as I know there is no particular reason for supposing that the suspect's identiftity was known before 1891. If the suspect was Aaron Kosminski then in early 1891 for unknown reasons the police thought he could be Jack the Ripper and took him to be identified, but the witness refused to give evidence. The suspect was released but kept under 24-hour surveillane, but within a very short time was committed by his family. If this scenario is correct, the police had no idea who the Ripper was until early 1891 when for unknown reasons suspicions fell on the suspect.
If Aaron Kosminski, by the way, I have doubts that the suspicions would have been caused by something as commonplace as threatening the life of his (or Jacob Cohen's) sister with a knife. Such domestic disturbances in the East End would not have occassioned much comment or caused suspicion, though in combination with the other clear manifestations of madness, would have been sufficient for committal.
The official files would presumably have contained documents relating to the identification, but many files have gone missing. In fact we no longer have the files about any suspect.
Jon:- I can't recall the in detail what you think Anderson got wrong, but as I see it the situation we have is that pendng evidence to the contrary, there was a suspect, there was a witness and there was an identification, and Anderson and Swanson apparently accepted that the suspect was Jack the Ripper. You ask "So, what value is this 'Identification'" Well, for me the value is that two intelligent, informed, and senior officials with access to information we don't have or have any real idea about were sufficiently impressed by it to conclude that the suspect was the murderer. I have no idea whether they were right or not, but I certainly think that their opinion deserves serious attention. .
I don't know why Swanson made the marginalia. Why does anyone write comments in the margins of books! But he did, not just about the Ripper in his copy of Anderson's autobiography, but about other matters in other books. Not many, it is true, but it was something he did.
Dave & Jill:- if CMD has yellow teeth, I can't say I noticed. In fact I found him charming, witty, intelligent, excellent company and a pretty snappy dresser. He's got some funny ideas about itching powder though! So, Jill, don't worry about cuddling close... |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 06:05 am | | At 5ft next to nothing, not an ice cube in sight, and common as muck, I've got absolutely no chance of a cuddle with CMD.
But if itching powder is in there somewhere, perhaps it's just as well I don't come up to scratch... ;-)
Good luck Jill!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 06:56 am | | ANDERSON stated that the witness unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him.Was the identification by name,by features,as a Jew, as a person he had seen at a murder site or some combination of above.(for instance:"I know that man,His name is Kaminsky"or"I recognise the features,he is Jewish"
).Undestand my meaning?
If witness knew that suspect was Jewish prior to confrontation,why attend.Same applies at time of murder.Why come forward if intention was not to testify.The inference seems to suggest that witness did not know suspect was Jewish untill the
confrontation took place if at all.
So the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer(anderson's words)had not recognised him as Jewish at the murder scene,had not recognised him as somone he knew at the murder scene and had not recognised him by features at the murder scene.
So then did a witness ever identify a suspect as Jewish at a seaside home.Only the words ofAnderson and Swanson say so.
Although the naming of the suspect may not have been prudent,I see no reason reason why the identity of the witness should not be revealed.Each had come forward volluntarily and
each had already been given wide publicity. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 08:25 am | | Hi Harry:- True, we only have Anderson's and Swanson's word that there was an indentification, just as we only have the word of Macnaghten about Druitt or Littlechild about Tumblety. The question is, would these men have lied? As said, in the case of Anderson other extraordinary stories of his have checked and found to be true. There's no reason to suppose that he was an out-and-out liar.
One reason why the name of the witness may not have been revealed was because he rused to give evidence. Then, as now, there were people who needed little enough reason to do injury to another, so reveaing the name of the man who prevented Jack the Ripper from being brought to justice (as some might interpret his actions) could have put him in very real physical danger. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 09:37 am | | | Excuse me Paul, we have confirmation of Tumblety as a suspect in the contemporary U.S. press reports, no such reports exist for Druitt, Kosminski or Ostrog. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 11:03 am | | | Many thanks, Stewart. A foolish error. Thanks for correcting it. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 12:46 pm | | Incidentally, I myself may qualify as the "tall, icy redhead" sought. I am six feet two inches tall, and have red hair with a bit of frosty gray now mixing in, when I've not lately been using the henna. So here I am, tall, icy, and red-headed.
With respect to Mr. DiGrazia's comment that he "doesn't understand" what I've got against him, this is a semantical dodge on his part to structure the public mind in such a way as to avoid the necessity of apologising to me publicly. He in fact understands the matter very well indeed. One can still read his unfounded charge of misogyny against me on these boards.
David
PS CAZ: I've been getting news from Wimbledon, and thinking of you. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 28 June 2000 - 05:39 pm | | Hi All,
David writes:
>Incidentally, I myself may qualify as the "tall, icy redhead" sought.
Gee David, I thought you told Jon that you date women. I've met CMD, and he is definitely not a woman. Come to think of it, he doesn't have yellow teeth either, though he may still be up for a cuddle since you're so tall and red-headed and icy and all.
Me, personally, I *never* date women. It makes my wife sooooo angry.....
Cheers all,
Jim |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 03:28 am | | Thanks David, what a nice thought.
Seems like people are knocking each other's balls about everywhere these days.... ;-)
(15) Love?
Caz |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 06:24 am | | Paul,
No I do not think Anderson or Swanson were out and out liars,only that on occasions,like all of us,they would be tempted if they thought it neccessary.In this case perhaps self esteem and the good name of the police might have been the trigger.
Perhaps another reason why names was not mentioned, was that the witness might have quite a different story to tell.
Even had the confrontation been true,of what real value was it.At the most it places a person near the scene of a crime.What of the witness's themselves,and here I think it is a case of either
Lawende or Schwartz.One had stated he did not believe he would recognise the man again,and the other took to his heels and was away after what could only have been a brief glance.
So unless Anderson and SWanson had substantial further evidence,of which only they must have been aware,they are left with a doubtful witness and a man suffering a mental illness.Not much to solve the crime of the century.
H.mann. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 07:26 am | | Harry:- There's a lot of supposition there, but your final paragraph is essentially correct. However, since neither Anderson nor Swanson were fools, presumably they would have recognised the weakness of their case and been unpersuaded by it. Or they had further evidence.
That's why I say that we can't really make any judgement about their conclusion because we don't know on what evidence it was based. And why I say that Anderson and Swanson therefore need to be taken seriously, rather than dismissed out of hand. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 12:27 pm | | Would knowing who the Seaside Home was for, help in any way? I mean if the place was for Met. police only, then we might be able to forget about Lawende & the City police entirely.
(who funded the place?)
Somehow, I dont think the answer will be that simple.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 01:30 pm | | Jon:- It was for all policemen, Metropolitan, City and Provincial forces. According to the First Annual Report, "From its opening until March 1 1891 it had received 102 visitors - 1 ex-superintendent, 9 inspectors, 11 sergeants, and 24 constables, 5 ex-police officers, and 2 other visitors admitted by special request." Of these, 96 were members of the Met, the others were from Berkshire, Lincoln and Northampton. Nobody seems to have been admitted from the City Force.
It was supported by subscriptions and donations.
The First Annual Report is of an establishment called "Police Seaside Home and Southern Police Orphanage" and it was located at 51 Clarendon Villas, West Brighton.
Of course, the material generating most interest has long been the reference to "2 other visitors admitted by special request." It may not be a reference to the witness and suspect, but... |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 06:30 pm | | Paul
Thankyou for posting that list again, its a shame the dates of the 2 special visitors are not recorded. If they were seperate admissions and if the admission date's fell between March & July 15th 1890, it would be of great interest.
As it is, its another Jack the Ripper teaser :-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 02:53 am | | | Jon:- A teaser indeed! And it would be very easy to make a little mountain out of a very small molehill, curious, though, that it should be two people, presumably civilians (because policemen and ex-policemen are specified) and admitted by special request, at a time when according to Swanson the suspect and witness would have been there. Probably nothing to do with anything of interest to us, but curious nonetheless. I also don't know if the absence of any City activity could mean that the witness wasn't Lawende, but then I don't think it was anyway. |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 06:39 am | | Paul,
I fail to see where in my last post there is a lot of supposition,but I would be prepared to try to answer any such if pointed out.
I do not consider Anderson or Swanson as fools either.Each would have been in possession of a great amount of information,but how much of that information was evidence.How much supported their claim that they had definately identified the killer.We do not know.They do not say.
Other officers prominent in the investigation,
would also have been in possession of much information,probably of the same sort as Anderson and Swanson,but they say they had no idea of who the killer was,and no evidence that would point to a particular person.
If Anderson and Swanson bring doubt upon themselves,it is because as experienced and intelligent officers they fail to support thei statements in an intelligent manner.
H.Mann. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 08:30 am | | Paul
Lawende (swore he could not identify the man again) or not, I have no opinion on that either, but if it was Schwartz, wouldnt we expect to see a third person?. The word is that Schwartz could only speak Hungarian yiddish, or at least needed an interpreter. I dont see the police risking a misinterpretation, by not having one on hand.
But then if the 2 visitors were 'suspect' & 'interpreter' then why was the witness not listed?
And supposing the witness was a resident, he would have to be a PC. And PC William Smith was the only PC we know of to get a good view of the 'potential' killer. But was Smith Jewish?, that hardly seems likely. But then the 2 visitors may be 'suspect' & 'escort'.
We dont even know that the I.D. took place in the first year of the home's opening, either. The '2 visitors' could be any 2, for any other reason.
If this whole I.D. scenario is centered on the Berner St. case, I dont think we are dealing with Jack at all, my personal opinion, based on whats left of the evidence, is that Stride was not a Ripper victim. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 08:38 am | | My oppologies for the confused 2nd sentence (above), my editing skills are apparently 'kaput' this morning :-(
I forgot we can edit our postes.......the above is now edited. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 09:52 am | | Harry:- The supposition I meant was the speculation that Anderson and Swanson would have lied if they had reason - which, like everyone, I'm sure they would, but it is supposition that they did so in this instance. And it was supposition that the witness might have told a different story if he'd been identified and questioned. It is equally likely that Anderson and Swanson didn't lie and that the witness would have told exactly the same story. Otherwise the point you make is one with which I essentially agree, the only difference is that you believe Anderson and Swanson 'fail to support their statements in an intelligent manner' while I believe that they were under no obligation to say more than they did and did not have to prove anything. As I have said, Anderson says he took lodging in Charles Gibbons's sumptuous home, but he didn't reproduce his rent book or an affidavit from Gibbons to prove it. Hw was simply stating what he believed to be true and he rightly expected to be taken at his word.
Jon:- The First Annual Report concerns the Seaside Home from its opening in 1890 to 1 March 1891. Aaron Kosminski was committed on 4 February 1891.
If he was the suspect, then the episode at the Seaside Home would have been before that date and would have fallen with the dates of the First Annual Report.
Sorry, Jon, I didn't really mean that the two visitors, if witness and suspect, were the only two people present. I assume the Report refers to people who stayed in the Home overnight - who occupied a bed. I assume policemen and interpreters and so on either returned to London on stayed at the Home on guard.
If Schwartz, I am inclined to agree, though I don't know whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 06:47 am | | Paul,
Inthe strictest sense,I agree my opinions were speculative,but so must the opinion that Anderson and Swanson were telling the truth,be so.
It is historical fact,that some persons,no matter their rank,will lie.On the subject of the confrontation,it is the lack of supporting facts that tests their credability.If the meeting claim was false,the ommision of names prevented that fact from being known.
Anderson stated as definate fact that the identity of the ripper was known.He had also previously boasted that he could solve the case in a few days,if given that time,He might well have been tempted to give the impression that both were true.Speculation yes,but not idle speculation.
Now if the identity of the ripper was known to Anderson,it was his duty to disclose it,if only to the officers still investigating the case.there
were other witnesses available to make an identification.I'm sure Abberline,who believed Hutchinson,would have been quick to seize the opportunity.Two possitives would have more merit than one.
H.Mann. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 09:09 am | | | Harry:- In a broad general sense all things are speculative and we can be certain of nothing. All I am saying is that we have two highly reputable and informed sources who indicate that they were persuaded of a suspect's guilt. Maybe they were lying, but I have no real reason to suppose they were. If I did have such a reason, other than a speculative one to the effect that they might be lying because people do lie, then I certainly wouldn't give them as much houseroom as I do. But I don't have that sort of good evidence. On the contrary, where else Anderson reveals stuff, if has been shown to be true. That doesnt make him right - and I haven't ever said I think he's right (I actually think his suspect may have murdered Stride, which is why I have always maintained that the witness was Schwartz, but that Stride might not have been a Ripper victim), but I do think his suspect deserves priority of research. Whether or not he would or should have disclosed his thoughts, I really don't know. He may have had perfectly good reasons for not doing so. That's the overall problem, with so little information to build on, we can't really begin to construct any sort of scenario. |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 01 July 2000 - 11:54 am | | Mr. Begg,
Never to countenance impertinence or disrespect to you, with respect to your statement above "I have always maintained that the witness was Schwartz", I have read you say on these boards "the witness just had to be J. Lawende", and, at other times, that he could have been J.H. Levy, or possibly even H. Harris as well. You've made the point a fair number of times that we just don't know who the witness was, and therefore that he could have been basically anybody qualified as being a Jew. Sometimes we speak in varying contexts.
Respecting Swanson, I'd like to ask the assembled posters here if they think the "agreement between the two as to the guilt of the suspect" may be attributed to Swanson parrotting Anderson. The two were quite tight, as the supervisor/subordinate relationship goes.
Polly want a cracker?
David |
Author: Carl Dodd
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 04:03 pm | | | I'm going to jump in here and probably get bit for doing it. I'm a retired police officer. I retired with a 29 year pension. In my years of work I know, in my own mind, that there were several men who were arrested that did murders which could not be proved back to them, the murderers. I'll give you an example. I got a report about a young girl who was from another state. She had been brought to this state by her biker boyfriend. A local biker had wanted to have sex with this girl. Her boyfriend said, "Okay." When the local biker approached the girl, the girl laughed at the local biker and said, "You're too ugly for me to f***." The local biker pulled a big bore pistol and shot the girl without any hesitation. The local biker looked at the dying girl and said, "No. I'm not too ugly to really f*** you." After that the girl's body was disposed of the reports kept surfacing and surfacing. We never were able to establish the girl's identity, place of residence or find her body. I'm very sure that this incident happened but we never were able to prove it to the point that we were able to arrest and charge the killer. Time, however, is on the side of the police. I like to think that one day, in a few years, we'll find that missing girl and who she is, etc. One day justice will be done. So, did or could police officers have known who a killer was and what the killer had done in 1888? I say, based upon my experiences, yes. They could have known but they might have been in a position where they couldn't or weren't allowed to make an arrest. I'll bet though that the officers tried to make the case to the best of their abilities. At least they tried..... |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 06 September 2000 - 03:46 am | | Hi Carl,
Why sould you be bitten? Nice to see you around here. :-)
Greetings,
Jill (aka Helen) |
|
|
|
|
