|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 19 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: Police Officials:
Dr Robert Anderson:
Archive through 19 January 2003
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:50 am |        | In view of the undoubted importance of Anderson and his claims regarding the Whitechapel murderer, I thought it would be interesting to start a thread discussing what he said.
The importance attached to Anderson is underlined by Paul Begg in his new book, Jack the Ripper: the Definitive History, that devotes twelve pages to the Polish Jew suspect Kosminski, much more than twice the space devoted to any of the other suspects discussed.
Anderson's mindset from a very early stage of the proceedings appears to have been that he believed the murderer to be a 'lunatic'. It is by making a careful assessment of the early period of the history of the murders and what was stated that may hold the vital clues as to the true status of this line of reasoning.
Thus, I feel, that by examining the period 1888-1901, thus avoiding the later contentious claims, there may be an interesting discovery to be made. Does anyone have any comments on this? |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:16 am | | Stewart,
Excellent topic, but I believe we will arrive at another impasse. There are those who are pro-Anderson and believe in his Polish Jew suspect (Kosminski or David Cohen), and those who are Anti-Anderson.
My opinions regarding Anderson have been posted numerous times. Anderson's status as an impeccible source has been challenged by numerous writers and even Winston Churchill himself. I believe Churchill called Anderson's 1910 memoirs 'boastful'.
The main point that should be discussed is how did MacNaghten get the name Kosminski? To me that is the key to this puzzle.
I believe MacNaghten was given the name Kosminski directly by Anderson because MacNaghten discovered the Irish-Fenian assassination plot against Arthur Balfour linked to 'Jack the Ripper'. The spymaster, lawyer, and life long Anti-Fenian had to throw MacNaghten off the Irish-Fenian 'JTR' by handing him Kosminski.
Kosminski remained alive until 1919, so it stands to reason that Anderson could never publicly name him from the 1895 Griffiths article to his 1910 memoirs. Swanson's notes were never to be made public, yet rather for his own benefit. I do not believe Swanson was at any identification, or that an identification took place unless the suspect was James Thomas Sadler.
Anderson is accepted as truth. Those who believe his words wholeheartedly should examine the articles Anderson authored and contributed to The Times smearing the name of Charles Stewart Parnell. In a recent book titled Fenian Fire, Anderson's reliability is questioned. The proof to doubt Anderson's thoughts is out there and just needs to be examined without a bias.
Again, MacNaghten's naming of Kosminski in his 1894 memorandum is a vital issue to the question posed by Stewart. That may also hold the key to answering the bigger issue.
STAN |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:49 am | | Stewart, thanks for the new topic. I've felt for some time that Anderson's focus on a lunatic was his attempt at being responsible, 'modern', and scientific. In editorial after editorial, and in the medical journals, the eminent medical men of 1888 were telling him that the murderer was a homocidal maniac; it is understanbable that he would be swayed by these theories---hence much of the focus on crazy butchers, insane medical students, etc.
A rather extreme example of the 'lunatic' theory from the New York Herald:
"It is a fact that all the Whitechapel murders have occurred about the 8th of the month or on the very last days of each month, and it is claimed that every fresh outbreak has occurred with this change of the moon. This, it is thought, indicates that the murderer is a maniac and has periodic fits of insanity."
These opinions seem quaint to us, but they were taken seriously.
Stan--Interesting theory, but I have serious doubts about Anderson being a master spy. In regards to the Fenians, Anderson had great confidence in Le Caron, and Le Caron was a sham. Doesn't this suggest that Anderson could be bamboozled? I hold more to the boring view that Anderson's unreliability is due more to an obtuse stubborness than to stealth. RP |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:03 am | | R.J.,
Anderson was a spymaster, not a master spy. He was solely in charge of Le Caron who was a spy deep within the Fenian movement. Le Caron, or his real name Thomas Miller Beach ended his career as a spy to testify against Parnell for the Parnell Commission.
This implies 2 important points
1 - Despite Le Caron being deep within the Fenian movement there still was not enough evidence to link Parnell to the Phoenix Park murders, so he was pulled from the field to supply a first hand history of Parnell dealing with the American Fenians.
2 - The Fenian movement against the English had died down by the time of the murders, enough so to pull the main spy Le Caron from within their movement.
STAN |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:13 am | | Hi All,
Well the one thing that has always gotten to me about the Anderson Suspect was that many people continue to believe that Lawende has to be the 'only good eyewitness'. I'm sorry but I always felt Schwartz was a much better witness than Lawende.(When taken into account that Anderson agreed that Stride was a Ripper Killing.)
After all, wasn't it Lawende who said that he doubted he could recognize the man again? Plus the fact that the position of the man and woman at Church Passage would have given him an obstructed view of the man, since the woman is standing in the way.
Schwartz on the other hand had a good glimpse at the two men at the scene with Stride. He could see both of their faces without obstruction.
When taking this into account I wonder that if the Witness was Schwartz perhaps he didn't wish to 'hang a man' when he wasn't sure which one of the two men he saw was the actual killer, rather than the idea that Schwartz was protecting the suspect because of his being Jewish?
I could understand how Anderson would make this mistake, especially since he has displayed a bit of a bigoted stance on those who didn't share his views.(Especially Religious Wise.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:28 am | | | Stan--The standard opinions about Beech come directly from Beech's own autobiography. Is this an accurate portrayal? The general opinion in American during the Parnell inquiry was that Beech was a con artist. What I tend to question is how "deep down" Beech really was in the Irish movement. He was paid a hefty sum by the British Government; did he sell them a tall tale? If so, what does this say about Anderson? Questions worth asking. RP |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:44 am | | R.J.,
Beech came out publicly against Parnell at the inquiry into Anderson's slanderous statements from the Times. Why would Beech have come out against Parnell if he was working both sides for himself?
STAN |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 02:19 pm | | I think that any discussion about suspects for Jack the Ripper will, eventually, lead to an impasse. But a clearer understanding of exactly how Anderson viewed things may hold some clues to bring his words into sharper focus.
As such, I was hoping that emphasis could be brought onto his actual words and ideas pre-1900. This was the period closer to the murders and a proper chronological analysis of his statements may serve to eliminate some areas of theorising.
Stan raises a good point in suggesting a closer look at exactly how Anderson went about attacking Parnell which sheds light on his way of thinking. Also R.J. identifies the fact that Anderson agreed with some of the then current medical opinion as to the killer's apparent 'mania'. Chris mentions the 'Anderson witness' which is another factor to bear in mind.
However, one of the earliest public statements of Anderson on the murders appeared in 1889 and bears close examination. It appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 4, 1889 and is often overlooked: -
"A Philadelphian journalist, Mr. R. Harding Davis, has been publishing in a syndicate of American papers, an account of a night he spent upon the scene of the Whitechapel murders, towards the end of August, in the company of Police Inspector Moore, in the course of which some interesting statements occur.
DR. ANDERSON ON CRIMINAL "SHOW PLACES,"
Mr. Davis had taken a letter of introduction to Dr. Robert Anderson, the head of the Criminal Investigation Department, who remarked to him, "I am sorry to say on your account and quite satisfied on my own that we have very few criminal 'show places' in London. Of course, there is the Scotland Yard Museum that visitors consider one of sights, and then there is Whitechapel. But that is 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 man 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 journalist 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 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. After 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."
This statement of Anderson's, alone, should be enough to dismiss the Cohen theory and any other idea that the killer had been incarcerated or died prior to August 1889. And later evidence supports this contention. Food for thought indeed. It is noticeable how Cohen theorists tend to ignore this piece and leave it out of their writings. |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 03:26 pm | | Stewart,
An additional detractor to the David Cohen theory is that for the Alice McKenzie murder, Anderson called in Dr. Bond to examine the body. By this time Cohen had been incarcerated for close to 7 months.
If Anderson knew Cohen was 'JTR', there would be no need to call in Dr. Bond. McKenzie did not possess the distinct outward signs of being a 'Ripper' victim. This shows that Anderson possesed doubts as to whether 'JTR' was still roaming the streets, seven months after Cohen's incarceration.
It is true that Anderson was on leave during the McKenzie murder, and that most likely Monro ordered Dr. Bond to examine her body. Anderson was Monro's direct subordinate and had worked closely with Monro in the Anti-Fenian movement. What Anderson believed, Monro believed.
This seems to be left out of the Cohen theory also.
STAN |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:23 pm | | Stewart,
How did Matthews react to this making it's way into the press? Anderson shouldn't have been talking to the press without Matthew's express permission, if he was following Howard Vincent's press gag order rule of the earlier 1880s...
If Matthew's went after Warren for an unrelated article in Murray's magazine, why didn't he go after Anderson for this statement?
B |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:46 pm | | Lay-deez an' a' gennimin,
What difference does it make how Anderson handled the Parnell affair to how he handled the Ripper identification? Two disparate events are being compared here as if they were very much the same kind of thing. But the evidence is that the Ripper identification was a very unique kind of thing, a thing-unto-itself. It is extraordinary that (1) Swanson says it happened at the Seaside Home, (2) it happened 18 months after the cessation, (3) the witness was not subpoenaed, (4) the witness identified but refused to testify, (5) the witness was said to be the only witness who had a "good look" at the murderer, on and on. Don't you think that Anderson may have handled this differently than he handled other, more routine police affairs?
The comparison, it seems to me, is a desparate one.
David |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:46 pm | | Hi all.
Am I the only poster who suspects that Warren's magazine article was merely a convenient pretext for Matthews?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 08:58 pm | | Timsta,
I agree with you - Matthews was using anything in his power to put pressure on Warren. As time went on, Matthews was coming under more and more pressure to issue a reward, but because he hadn't done so for so long, he couldn't just reverse himself without a good reason or his career was over (it was basically over anyway). So he kept trying to get Warren to say that there was no other way, and that the Met was at it's wits end. Warren wasn't that stupid, and he wouldn't.
Bashing him for his Murray's magazine article wouldn't have happened if the Ripper murders weren't on-going, or if they had had any kind of a normal working relationship, in my opinion.
B |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:34 pm | | Hi Stewart,
The item about Richard Harding Davis interviewing
Sir Robert Anderson is new to me. I double-checked THE REPORTER WHO WOULD BE KING: A BIOGRAPHY OF RICHARD HARDING DAVIS by Arthur
Lubow (New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, c. 1992)
and found no reference to Anderson, Jack the
Ripper, or Whitechapel in the index. In 1889
Davis made his reputation as a reporter by his
excellent coverage of the Johnstown Flood disaster
in May of that year. He may have made a trip to
England shortly afterwards. Throughout his career, although best recalled as an early war
correspondent (and booster of Theodore Roosevelt's
military career in Cuba), Davis had reported
on criminals. In August 1890 he was one of the
witnesses at the first electrocution of a murderer
(William Kemmler). He also would write a column
in 1906 defending the memory of murder victim
Stamford White, after the Yellow Press began making White's killer Harry Thaw into a defender
of hearth and home.
As for Anderson and those memoirs, I wish people
would examine them closely. He tells a story in
it about a former French policeman under Napoleon
III, who after 1870 becomes an informer for
Anderson, and who tells a story that Count d'Orsey
did not die of natural causes in 1851, but died
as the result of a bullet meant for Napoleon III.
I double-checked the possible truth about that
with an expert on 19th Century French history,
and he said it was totally false.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:41 am | | IMHO, the framework for analyzing the Brighton affair is set up in the wrong place. So many people want to ask "Is Anderson trustworthy or isn't he?" This misses the facticity of the identification. Whatever anyone wants to say about the man, something had to have happened to him to convince him that the murderer had been identified. We don't know exactly what that something was, but we do know there must have been something. We have to just eat the frustration and paradox, and go on thinking. And it really isn't so hard if you set yourself arrights and press on.
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:37 am | | The visit of R. Harding Davis to H Division appears to have been properly arranged and would have been done with the proper authority. Anderson's comments were not controversial and he was not writing the article himself, so I don't think that what he said would have caused any waves. It cannot be compared with the Murray's Magazine article by Warren which was an entirely different thing. It was about the police and was an article written by Warren without sanction. The important thing, though, is the fact that it effectively disposes of the Cohen idea, as do Anderson's comments on the McKenzie murder which is one of the reasons that I think Paul has never agreed with that theory.
Jeff, thanks for the information on Davis. It would be interesting to see if someone in the USA could track down copies of the Davis articles in the US press which must have appeared between August and October 1889.
The 1895 piece on Anderson in The Windsor Magazine is also important and ran as follows:-
"Although he has achieved greater success than any detective of his time, there will always be undiscovered crimes, and just now the tale is pretty full. Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum."
As has been stated in the past, there is no 'definitely ascertained fact' mentioned or even hinted at here, but Anderson obviously mentioned this information himself to the writer, who was his friend Major Arthur Griffiths. It also shows that Anderson was espousing this theory as early as 1895. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:52 am | | Another problem the theorists have to overcome is the fact that when Sadler was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Frances Coles on 14 February 1891 the police thought that he might be Jack the Ripper.
They held an identity parade on Sadler using Lawende in the attempt to identify him as the Ripper. Lawende failed to identify him. This raises several points.
1. If the police had already identified a Polish Jew as Jack the Ripper (as a 'definitely ascertained fact') what were they doing also trying to identify Sadler as the Ripper?
2. They may have been 'clutching at straws' using Lawende, as he was not a good witness, but, nevertheless, they did use him. And were believed to have used him again in 1895 for a similar purpose.
3. Why didn't they use Schwartz if he was a good witness? It is a nonsense to suggest he had been previously used in the identification of a Polish Jew for the reasons at 1 and 2 above and on the refusal of the witness to identify the Polish Jew suspect then surely Lawende would have been used in that identification attempt.
4. There would have been some mention or record of such an identification surviving.
5. It must surely be more than a coincidence that Kosminski had been re-admitted on 4 February 1891 and sent to Colney Hatch on 7 February 1891, just a week before the arrest and attempted identification of Sadler as the Ripper.
These are intriguing points that cannot be ignored in any assessment of what went on. |
Author: David Jetson
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 08:31 am | | It seems to me that people are assuming that what one cop thought (or "knew") was known to all cops.
It also seems to me that the Police of the time were in a strangely familiar situation - all the "experts" having theories that completely contradict each other.
I feel that the various police officials seem to have been pursuing different suspects, different lines of enquiry, different theories, in exactly the same way that the people on this forum do.
There is no reason that some cops wouldn't be trying to identify the Ripper in 1891 or 1895 or whatever, while other cops were convinced that he was dead or locked up. They didn't know. Nobody knew for sure.
And if, as some theorists suggest, there was a conspiracy of some kind (and I don't believe it myself) then they would be keeping their knowledge to themselves while allowing, or even encouraging, investigations that they knew were red herrings, to distract from whatever it was they wanted kept secret.
It's just as easy for a cop to be convinced of the truth of his personal theory as it is for any of us - we're all human. While the various Police officials were no doubt highly experienced at their own fields, there sure wasn't any concept of a serial killer as we know it today. We know a heck of a lot more about the behavior and psychology of serial killers and lust killers and the whole sorry range of killers than anyone did in 1888.
Serial killing was NOT an invention of Jack the Ripper, and there is evidence of the behavior of mass killers and lust crimes going back forever in human history. The difference was that Jack was the first to be clearly recognised as such at the time. The police and the public were aware that something unusual was happening, even if they knew nothing of the concept of a serial killer.
Stranger murder, thrill-killing, was not a new phenomenon, but it was being recognised as a seperate phenomenon to understandable killings that happened for financial gain or your standard wife-murder domestic. So it isn't that surprising that while the experts recognised that something was going on, they had a wide range of opinions about what it was and who was behind it.
It's worth mentioning that the best argument against the death penalty is the number of times that despite all of the experts agreeing, many innocent people have been executed for crimes that someone else was later proved to have commited.
The cops in LA were so convinced that OJ did it that they faked evidence to secure a conviction, which backfired on them rather seriously. I do not know that OJ did it, though I suspect so. The important point is that convicting anyone of anything on the basis of opinion (or suspicion) alone is clearly wrong. |
Author: stephen stanley
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 09:39 am | | Sticking my head above the parapet..David Radka's made a very valid point.Anderson's behaviour in intelligence related matters can't be taken as a model for his reliability in more "mundane" criminal events.Current & past Intelligence operatives have been known to utilise the media to further what they see as neccessary for the defence of the realm..ie, they don't fight fair..doesn't mean they can't be relied upon on other topics.
Steve |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 10:16 am | | Steve--But that's merely an interpretation; a possibility. Anderson's personality, his judgement, his outlook are entirely to the point in judging his opinion about the Jewish suspect. The point really, is how good the evidence had to be before Anderson was willing to stick his neck out and claim that he knew the truth. I would argue that a certain dogmatic frame of mind made Anderson prone to accepting as "moral certain" what really couldn't be known with any amount of certainty. It's not irrelevant that Major Griffith's 1895 remark about "undiscovered crimes" in relation to the Whitechapel murders is echoed by Anderson when he makes his now famous statement in Blackwood's about knowing the identity of the Ripper. Griffith's remark must have goaded him, because he remembers it 15 years later. Anderson's statements clearly became more dogmatic with age. Talk about a pattern of escalation. IMHO, of course.
So is Anderson giving us stealth in his early comments, or is he giving us cranky opinions?
The answer, I think, is in Macnagthen. Macnaghten still seems to me to be the greatest burr under the Andersonians' saddle. As Stewart points out with much lucidity in his dissertation on the Seaside Home, Macnaghten was Chief Constable at the time of the Kosminski identification. It is inconceivable that he didn't know about it; indeed, it was from Macnaghten that we first learned about Kosminski. But in the end, Macnaghten tended to exonerate the suspect. Not exactly "moral certainty", I would think. RP |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 12:00 pm | | "The point really, is how good the evidence had to be before Anderson was willing to stick his neck out and claim that he knew the truth. I would argue that a certain dogmatic frame of mind made Anderson prone to accepting as "moral certain" what really couldn't be known with any amount of certainty."
RJ,
And this is, what--? YOUR interpretation, isn't it? How do you know what Anderson knew? The FACT is that Anderson was convinced by SOMETHING that the identity of the murderer was a definitely ascertained fact. This something is like Kant's proverbial "thing in itself;" we can think of it only indirectly, we can't think it without, well, thinking it. See what I mean?
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:16 pm | | No, we don't know that's a fact. We don't know that Anderson was actually convinced in his mind who the killer was. His actions indicate more someone who was still trying to find the killer than someone whose mind was made up. He could have just been bluffing to make himself sound more intelligent than he really was. That's more in character with everything else we know about his life.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: stephen stanley
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:36 pm | | I don't think there's much doubt that Anderson's character is the most complex of the Police Sources...part "modern" Intelligence man..part Religous enthusiast of a type I've got no personal knowledge of..That's why I find it hard to draw conclusions from one part of his life & apply it to others...We're talking about a man with a different cultural viewpoint to us..I think what I'm saying is the reasons for his truthfulness(or lack of it) may not be apparent to 21st cent. minds. Typical historical example..Oliver Cromwell ,there's no way a modern mine can empathise with his thought processes..the "data base" is different.
Steve |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 04:02 pm | | Hi, Stewart et al.:
I have been researching Richard Harding Davis and found another article by him that mentions the Ripper case. It is--
"The West and East Ends of London," by Richard Harding Davis, Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 88, Issue 524, January 1894, pp. 279-293.
Although the writer does not go into depth about the murders it may be significant, given his evident earlier (1889) reported conversation with Dr. Robert Anderson that Davis writes (p. 292):
"In a minute's time one can walk from the grandly lit High Street, Whitechapel, . . . into a net-work of narrow passageways and blind alleys and covered courts as intricate and dirty as the great net-work of sewers which stretches beneath them. A criminal can turn into one of these courts and find half a dozen openings leading into other courts and into dark alleys, in which he can lose himself and his pursuers as effectively as though they were running in a maze. This fact explains, perhaps, the escape of the Whitechapel murderer, and serves to excuse in some degree the London police for having failed to find him."
Note the similarity of wording to Dr. Anderson's reported statement to Davis on the inability of the police to catch the murderer, as quoted by Stewart from the article about Davis's visit to Scotland Yard in Pall Mall Gazette of November 4, 1889:
". . . But I don't think you will be disappointed in the district. After 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."
All the best
Chris George
P.S. This Davis article is also of interest because on page 290 it mentions and quotes Mary Jane Kelly's landlord Joseph McCarthy in relation to the lodging house he ran in Dorset Street, Spitalfields. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 04:06 pm | | Unfortunately there are not too many relevant reports or statements by Anderson in the official Whitechapel murders files. However, one that does bear close examination and analysis, if that is possible, is a note dated 13 February 1891 on a file cover in the reports on the Coles murder. It runs thus:
"This case was reported to me in the middle of the night & I gave authority to send Supt Arnold all the aid he might require. 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"
This note was followed by a Home Office note stating:
"Seen & I have shown this to Mr Matthews & explained that I think it would be premature for us to venture taking opinion as to now for this case may obviously not be connected with any previous cases.
GRL/S
13/2."
On return to Anderson, he noted:
"As in former cases I wish to have a report each morning for the present.
RA
13/2"
[MEPO 3/140, f 116]
These minutes would seem to agree with the police idea that it may have been the Ripper at work again, and Anderson certainly says nothing to indicate that he does disagree with that view, nor that he thinks that the murderer has previously been identified. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 04:26 pm | | | Nice find Chris, and great illustrations. |
Author: Noel c. Auger
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 07:24 pm | | Stan,
You posted on 16/01---
Anderson was monro`s direct subordinate and had worked closely with Monroe in the anti-Fenian movement.What Anderson believed,Monroe believed¬
I think you are probably right in your view but since Monroe was in charge of the `secret department` during Warrens tenure of office he would be aware of any suspects known to Littlechild who was his subordinate.Do you think that what Littlechild believed Monroe believed?
Littlechild seems to have had no knowledge of a Dr. D (Druitt or Donstan) who appears to have formed the subject of Simms enquiry.If the foregoing is correct it would give an indication of Monroe`s `theory` which still remains unknown except as a `hot potato` |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 09:01 pm | | "We don't know that Anderson was actually convinced in his mind who the killer was."
Anderson publicly wrote:
1. The identity of the murderer was "a definitely ascertained fact."
2. There was "no doubt whatever" as to the identity of the murderer.
3. The murderer was identified by a witness who "unhesitantly identified him the moment he saw him."
Surely it cannot be said that Anderson had any doubt in his mind that the murderer had been identified.
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 09:37 pm | | David, the "definitely ascertained fact" quote has been misused for years. Anderson was referring specifically to the suspect's religion, and was responding directly to drubbing he received at the hands of the Jewish Chronicle. That is the historic context of the statement. "In stating that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact." In other words, the suspect was a Jew--that's indisputable--"so don't try and claim that I'm being anti-semetic." That's all he meant, and the next sentence makes his meaning clear.
Now, I'd agree that Anderson came to believe in his suspect's guilt, but so what? We can't construe this to mean that there was any absolute proof against the Jewish suspect. That's what you want, but I don't accept the premise, and for me to believe in the Polish Jew theory I still would demand independent evidence against the suspect.
Heck, even Anderson himself admits there was no rock solid evidence against the man---hence, his distinction between "moral" and "legal" proof. If he had proof, he wouldn't have needed to make the distinction. Isn't that obvious? Why is it so difficult to accept that this is a legitimate way to view Anderson? Like it or not, everyone has to climb the ladder rung by rung. No one gets a free flight to the top. RJP |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 09:43 pm | | "Climb the stairs to heaven on your knees, ye sinners!"
I agree. |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 08:34 am | | "Surely it cannot be said that Anderson had any doubt in his mind that the murderer had been identified."
You've never heard of someone lying or engaging in wishful thinking, especially to make themselves sound more intelligent than they really are and to try to minimize what others consider a failing?
Happens all the time. You can't just give everyone a free pass and accept their statements at face value, especially not someone of Anderson's character.
Beyond that, even if he were 100% convinced he thought he knew who the killer was, that is a far thing from being right about it.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 11:32 am | | "You've never heard of someone lying or engaging in wishful thinking, especially to make themselves sound more intelligent than they really are and to try to minimize what others consider a failing?"
Please show us substantive examples of Robert Anderson doing this. If you can't, say you can't.
What you're doing above is gossipping about Anderson. You're saying that because everyone is basically dishonest, therefore Anderson is lying when he says he identified the murderer. That is the same as saying, for example, that since people are basically crooked and Sam is the Treasurer of the company, therefore Sam has certainly fraudulently falsified the bookkeeping of the company in order to divert funds. No audit of his books are necessary, we might as well have Sam arrested forthwith.
Just because we can't "audit Anderson's books" concerning the identification doesn't give us the right to assume that he was a fraud. If you want to say he was a fraud, you have to show him so conclusively, with proof.
For those who don't like the way the case ended up, making up gossip about Anderson's personality is THE ONLY WAY to open the door to other suspects. So they do what they have to do, say what they have to say, to get themselves out of prison. If I felt I were in prison, I'd do the same.
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 12:39 pm | | Sorry David that's not the way it works. It is up to those who contend that Anderson was correct in what he said, and that the Ripper was who Anderson says he was, to prove their case with evidence to support their theory. There is none.
The whole 'Anderson theory' is founded upon the unbsubstantiated word of one man, Anderson, and to a lesser degree one of his subordinates, whose own statements do not fully agree with Anderson's. Add to this weak edifice the fact that other contemporary senior police officers, signally, totally disagreed with them and we are left with a pretty shaky foundation.
Also, two Ripper writers and theorists, Messrs. Begg and Fido, have both theorised at great length on the basis of Anderson's and Swanson's musings (of many years after the murders). It is very significant that after all these years pondering over the same material these two writers cannot even reach the same conclusion. Martin Fido finds it impossible to believe that Aaron Kosminski could be the Ripper and presents his Cohen theory (which as we have seen is negated by Anderson's own words) and Paul Begg feels that 'Kosminski' is the better choice for the identity of the Ripper, which Martin Fido rejects. Paul Begg is not as dogmatic over his choice as Martin Fido is over his.
It was pretty universally admitted by the police that there was no evidence against anyone as the Ripper. And none is to be found in all the surviving records. The material shown above tends to support the belief that Anderson's claim gained strength over the years resulting in his post-retirement claims that the police had not failed to identify the Ripper at all. That is, what started as a theory developed into a certainty. He knew the Ripper was a Polish Jew and he knew he had been locked in an asylum.
The doubtful nature of these claims has been chewed over for many years and it is noticeable that those who have supported Anderson over these years have failed to find new information on him or his claims about the Ripper, whilst those who do not set so much store on Anderson's words are the ones who have been finding new material on Anderson. This seems a bit odd. Surely those who espouse Anderson's word should be the ones researching him and coming up with this new information in an effort to obtain support for their theorising? |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 03:04 pm | | Stewart,
There is no "musing" as you say by Anderson or Swanson. Musing is the realm of the artist, such as the poet or the playwright, and is engaged in by those who wish to receive guidance in these or similar intuitive endeavours. No evidence of musing whatever is found in statements made by Anderson and Swanson about the identification. They do not use the alliterative language of the artist, but instead the "just the facts, ma'am" language of the policeman. The kind of language you used in your many years on the Metropolitan police force yourself. They speak categorically about plain facts. They are not doting or senile old men. What one says confirms that of the other, in the sense of a logical opposition, insofar as SOMETHING happened that convinced Anderson that the murderer had been identified. Swanson was not merely piping up to back up his boss. What he wrote was many years ex post facto, and he wrote it in a place where certainly he felt no one would ever see it. Thus the two combined make a striking singularity.
At the same time, I agree with you that the foundation for saying that the identity of the murderer has been found is weak. There is no reason for suspicion beyond the identification. The identification was not borne out in a court of law, neither was any physical evidence shown, nor apparently was anyone else on the police let into matters sufficiently to become convinced of it. This is extraordinary, but, on balance, I think we have to just let it be extraordinary. We have to eat the paradoxes and go from there. Let the black holes be black holes. Philosophical people like me are not tempermentally disinclined to do that, although most people are. I think this is the point at which most Ripperologists have thrown up their arms and proceded to begin looking for personality reasons to label Anderson a folly-follower.
You, I, and my mother have done plenty of things wrong in life. If you go looking in the history of my life for things I've done wrong, you'd surely find them. You'd find instances where I didn't use my better judgement, where I told a little white lie, where I had to cut corners to make ends meet. If you go looking for this in Anderson's life, of course you find it there too.
I think what we need, therefore, is a new method of Ripperology. One that doesn't shut down on these black holes. If we're stuck on the west side of the big lake needing to get to the east and we have no boat, we're just going to have to freeze that lake so we can walk over it.
I have the highest degree of respect for your concerns here, and your work on the case. You put your finger on the most serious lacuna of the case. We both know that what is bandied about on this web site is nothing, except for the resolution of this issue.
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 07:49 pm | | David,
To muse is to ponder or reflect upon, which is what someone may do when they think of events that occurred many years before. It is not restricted to artists, poets and playwrights, and in a literary sense it can be applied to Anderson as he was writing a book. Indeed, Anderson himself deliberately calls his book "The Lighter Side..." explaining that it is not an official history but more written to "interest and amuse the public; and it is with this modest aim therefore that, postponing graver 'reminiscences' to a future date, I now take up my pen." Unfortunately the 'graver reminiscences' never appeared. However, he does touch upon serious matters. It may seem, perhaps, to some that the word lessens the seriousness we attach to Anderson's (and Swanson's) words. He describes his writing as reminiscences, which are stories told about past events remembered and enjoyable recollection of past events, so perhaps that should be the word to use.
It worthy of note that debates about Anderson and Swanson nearly always become exercises in semantics and no agreement is ever reached. On the one hand you have those attaching too much importance to his words, and on the other those not attaching enough. Of course if what Anderson and Swanson wrote was "just the facts ma'am" their statements would not contain errors, they would both fully agree with each other, and there would not be such a chorus, amongst his contemporaries, accusing Anderson of being wrong.
What also must be borne in mind is the fact that in the chain of command in the CID, on the Ripper inquiry, Macnaghten was reporting to Anderson. Anderson was not involved in the 'hands on' inquiry and what he knew derived from his junior officers. So, in fact, what Anderson knew of the case derived from Swanson. Ergo, we cannot assume that Swanson corroborates Anderson, or vice versa. For what Anderson wrote in his book may have derived from Swanson in the first place, thus when Swanson annotated Anderson's book he may have been merely adding to and amending a story he had given Anderson. Perhaps this possibility accounts for the 'striking singularity' you note. It is convenient for Anderson theorists to overlook this possibility.
The problem is, no one will ever know who is right and who is wrong. The tendency of all authors proposing or favouring a suspect is to overstate their case and to indulge in selectivity and tendentious writing. Hence, as you will note, those arguing in favour of the Cohen-based theory conveniently omit all mention of Anderson's words in the 1889 R. Harding Davis interview and his later comments about the McKenzie murder. Anyone can talk in a "just the facts ma'am" way, but it does not automatically follow that they are correct or even telling the truth. Or perhaps mistaken or mis-remembering. 'B.S.' has always played a big part in the world of police life, and it still does. It goes hand in glove with the macho image that pervades the service. My many years, just short of twenty eight, of police service was with the Suffolk Constabulary and not the Metropolitan Police Force.
Now, if the case for accepting the Anderson scenario as a given fact was that strong there would be a lot more supporters of the 'Polish Jew' theory around than there are.
In the past, a few years ago now, you argued that the identity of the killer could be discovered using only available secondary sources. That is a very bold claim to make. For it assumes that the secondary sources you were using were supplying all the available evidence, they contained no errors and the opinions of the authors were clearly discernable from factual or historical material. Unfortunately this is not the case.
The evidence for the much argued over identification is not merely weak, it is virtually non-existent. To believe it you are required to entirely accept the Anderson/Swanson scenario without question. Such a momentous event could not have occurred without being known to others - those involved in the identification, other senior officers such as Macnaghten, asylum staff, etc. etc. It is unbelievable that no other independent source would ever record it in some way. The allowances you are prepared to make in order to accept the extraordinary scenario are up to you, but please don't ask me to accept them.
So, if to solve the case you have to be a philosopher, then I'm sorry but you are not going to find many converts when you present your case. And there will be a long line waiting to blow holes in it.
Ripperology, in my opinion, is a ridiculous word and not one to be encouraged. But the study of the Whitechapel murders is conducted at many levels. We don't need new methods for they are already there. You are, and have been for a long time, feeding in your philosophical views. And there's nothing wrong with that. It can make others think, it can open new avenues and new ideas. But all the different methods add to the whole in the study of an unsolved series of crimes that never will be solved. Please don't try to convert everyone to the philosophical approach, we all have our own ideas and methods. However, to 'solve' the case using the 'philosophical method' will result in a 'solution' that is, in all probability, satisfying only to the deviser himself.
Thank you for the kinds words about my 'concerns' here, the above posts show that I have highlighted points that others were not aware of. Perhaps that's because some of these points tend to get left out of most secondary sources.
I will just finish on the note that new material on Anderson is being found by those engaged in research. Just a couple of months ago I discovered a large article on him, containing interviews, and dating from the pre-'Macnaghten Memoranda' period. Anderson makes an interesting observation on the murders in this piece and it contains a lead that may direct us to an important essay written by Anderson himself.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 09:35 pm | | Stewart,
It really is an injustice to you that I am only half a debating partner for you. Since my theory is a secret, I leave you in the lurch each time we communicate. Yet you remain entirely fair to me, giving full measure of good will when you only receive half answers yourself. I wish it were different, but for now it can't be.
I can say that I have a theory of the case taken as a whole which seems to put the identification in a different light. What are perceived as serious objections are I think thus made less serious. There is a way to estimate the part we don't see using the part we do see. Sadly, that's about all I can say.
I'm anxiously awaiting your new information about Anderson, as I do all your books and articles.
Always the best,
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 10:20 pm | | | David, I be willing to bet one of my two goats that you're more interested in the witness than in the suspect, if you get my drift. RP |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 10:29 pm | | RJ,
Well, as I've recently e-mailed to Mr. Begg who favored me with a question, I don't think the witness was Schwartz. If Anderson were dealing with Schwartz as witness, he'd have the whole ball of wax right there. Schwartz is the best witness in the case, because he saw a man attacking a victim on the spot she was killed. Schwartz would have nearly the clout to hang the suspect right there. So I think if he were the one, Anderson would coerce him with a subpoena.
I of course don't know with certainty who the witness really was. There is no evidence to establish it.
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 11:46 pm | | | Speaking strictly as a Logician for a moment...If the Ripper crimes had happened in America, I would reason thus: Anderson's lack of a subpoena suggests that he couldn't subpoena: the witness was a spouse, an attorney, or a clergyman. The first two could be ruled out, because the witness was not on intimate terms with the suspect; we know this, because the witness didn't realize at first that he was facing a fellow Jew. This leaves only a clergyman. Ergo, the witness was a Rabbi. Mitre Square comes to mind. Unfortunately, we're talking British Law here, and unless I am very much mistaken, ever since the Reformation, anyone can be stuck with a subpoena. [So much for sanctuary]. Cheers, RP |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 12:58 am | | No evidence supports the contention that the witness was a Rabbi.
David |
|
|
|
|
