|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 21 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: Police Officials:
Dr Robert Anderson:
Archive through 21 January 2003
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:17 am |        | Dear RJ,
That's a huge jump to make...that Anderson could NOT subpoena because of only those three possibilities. I daresay subpoenas could be issued to the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Warren or Mrs Smith, but for what reason? And you don't need a subpoena to elicit answers to the matter under enquiry. The police have, and had, every right to question suspects, witnesses and third parties with information to relate. Your conclusion bears a strong similarity to Cornwell's, in that because Sickert could not be proved to be ABSENT, he must have been PRESENT!
Better start over with the logic, dear; there are far too many holes in this particular bucket for it to ever hold water.
Cheers to all,
J |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:54 am | | David,
No evidence supports the contention that a witness saw an attack upon Stride. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 04:38 am | | Thank you for that David. I am unable to make the 'new' article on Anderson available as information given in it reveals what may be a very important essay by Anderson, himself, during the period in question. This is at present the subject of ongoing research.
A great emphasis was first placed on the character and veracity of Anderson by those who base their ideas for a suspect mainly, or solely, on his word. When others have shown that there are reasons not to blindly accept what he says, the detractors have been criticised for making 'personal attacks' on Anderson's character. However, an examination of any historical source is necessary in order to assess the reliability, or otherwise, of that source. In Anderson's case there are serious reasons for doubt. As a result arguments are given on both sides with no consensus reached.
It cannot be accepted as a fact that what Anderson says is correct when there is absolutely no supporting evidence. Whatever information was adduced against the 'Polish Jew' we know it was insufficient to result in an arrest or a court case. Indeed, Anderson's writings indicate that what he thought amounted to only 'moral' certainty. We have examples of Anderson's 'moral certainty' - and it falls way short of being any sort of proof. I don't dismiss the man out of hand, for if I did I would not be pursuing the research into to him that I am. But I don't attach the huge amount importance to what he said that certain other people do.
I was pleased to see you call your own work 'a theory', and not a proven fact. I have said it before and I will say it again - they could not prove who the killer was at the time and it is certain that no one will now.
That such an identification actually took place cannot be accepted without certain prerequisites and assumptions. We cannot even prove that Anderson did not lie. Everyone lies at some time, it is a human weakness.
An attempted identification of a suspect and the failure by a Jewish witness to identify that suspect did take place (Sadler and Lawende). And that event, signally, took place within ten days of the permanent incarceration of Aaron Kosminski. It cannot be beyond the realms of possibility that the 'Anderson Polish Jew theory' developed from those events.
Schwartz is often given as the possible identity of 'Anderson's witness'. Even here there are problems, not least of all the actual use of Lawende as the Jewish witness in attempted identifications. Let us assume for a moment that after the murder of Stride, Schwartz actually identified the man he had seen assault Stride, fifteen minutes or so before her body was discovered. Certainly that would provide sufficient evidence for the arrest of that suspect. But would it prove that he was the killer? No, it would not. For the suspect would merely have to admit to throwing Stride to the ground, during some sort of dispute, at the entrance to Dutfield's Yard, and then say that he left her on the ground and walked off. Then the actual killer of Stride must have come along, or have been watching, and killed her after the man assaulting her left. It is not sufficient evidence for a conviction for murder.
I am well aware of the specious 'there must have been another witness we do not know about' argument. But the surviving police material totally militates against that idea. So fanciful ideas about others, such as Levy, can be bandied about but are totally lacking in any sort of good foundation. Basically it is just another theory developed by those wishing to build support for the convoluted theorising that goes on around Anderson. Of course it is all right for those espousing these ideas to do so, but please don't expect everyone else to accept them as fact, or anything approaching fact.
The most qualified and objective historian to have examined the subject is probably Phil Sugden. And he wastes no time at all in dismissing the Anderson-based theorising. Surely that must tell you something.
So, how on earth can all this theorising over such contentious points result in the 'final solution' to the case? Answer - it can't.
Stewart |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 07:50 am | | | Good Gawwwlly, Judith. It was a just bit of a joke, really. In the U.S., you can't force a clergyman, a spouse, or someone's personal lawyer to testify against the defendant. If there really was this super-witness that Messrs. Swanson & Anderson & Radka talk about, it's a legitimate question to ask why Anderson didn't force the witness to testify in a court of law. Yes, force. It happens in the legal world. The idea that the witness could simply refuse to testify againt a fellow-Jew is a remarkable one---and a difficult plank to accept in the Andersonian argument--- as there are, and always have been, ways of making a witness take the stand. There was no subpoena; makes me suspect that there was no witness. [Heck! This is a VERY old argument---Major Smith made it first] :-) Best wishes, RJ Palmer |
Author: David Jetson
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 08:44 am | | Anyone here actually given a witness statement to the Police? I have.
It seems to me that Anderson BELIEVED that the witness, whoever it was, had recognised the suspect, whoever it was.
Anderson also BELIEVED that the witness refused to confirm the identification because of his (the witness's) Jewishness.
The scenario is:
1. Witness sees suspect.
2. Witness reacts in a way that leads police to BELIEVE that witness recognises suspect.
3. Witness refuses to definately identify suspect.
4. Police come up with theory (Jewishness) to explain to themselves why the witness refuses to confirm identification.
All we have, really, is evidence that Anderson BELIEVED that the witness refused to testify because of his religion.
Since we don't even know who the witness was, we certainly have no idea why the witness reacted the way he did.
Could have been any number of reasons, like simply not wanting to help HANG someone without being 100% convinced that the suspect was the assailant.
As I've said, it's kind of hard to be sure, even if you're specifically trying to remember what is happening in front of you so that you CAN give a good witness statement. Easy enough to recognise someone you know, very hard to be 100% sure about someone you saw once, at a distance, at night, in frightening circumstances.
So, while Anderson obviously felt sure that the witness had recognised the suspect, we have no idea what the witness actually thought about the whole process, since we have no statement from the witness himself. |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 08:55 am | | I have to agree with David J. here. I've given a witness statement, and I've seen police officers interpret every slightly ambiguous word or gesture into something supporting their preconceived notions. They're only human after all.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 12:53 pm | | I really did know that, RJ; I just happen to agree with Stewart (about almost everything, actually) that there was no super witness, and the case will not be solved. I still don't get it, I guess....why go 'round and 'round about Anderson and his "musings" (and YES, David, even cops "muse"!), or the existence of a "witness", OR that the police knew who the Ripper was, and covered it up. There is no evidence of any of that, nor can it be inferred. Let's face it.... all we have to work with on this case are a few bare bones autopsy reports, inquest transcripts, police notes, and photos. All the rest is silence......
Inferrences are dangerous ground, and begin to sound a bit like Cornwell.... since Sickert was not proven to be absent, he must have been present. Huge leaps, those.
J |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:01 pm | | All,
I'll be completely honest here - I have never been very impressed with Anderson or his role in the murder investigations at all.
First, he had no experience being a detective. He was never a cop - he was a lawyer, and then he was an intelligence officer. Not only was he an intelligence officer, he was a bad one. Despite being an "advisor" to the Home Office for Political Crimes, for a good period of time all he did was run one agent. Granted, the agent was important, but what this had to do with police investigations, I don't know. Then he was appointed to the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea. Again, what this has to do with criminal investigation I don't know.
Everyone who dealt with him in his capacity as Beach's handler (other than Beach) said he was horrible.
The only reason I can see him getting promoted to Assistant Commissioner of CID was because Monro was running Special Branch at the same time, and Anderson had some experience dealing with Political Crime AND he had contacts in the Home Office.
When Monro quit, there really wasn't anyone else. And to top it off, apparently being an Intelligence Office and a Royal Commissioner was such hard work, he needed a two month vacation or he was going to die of overwork (I'm exaggerating here).
Everything I've read about Anderson leads me to conclude that the guy was a typical bureaucrat, exceedingly good at survival, but not very good at much else - and he had next to no experience in Detective work. He was unqualified for the job he held.
With that in mind, I really don't lend any credence to anything he had to say about the Ripper murders - he wasn't even in the country for the bulk of them, and presumably, everything he was to learn would come from Swanson's reports or his questioning of the detectives involved.
I'm sure that it made Anderson feel much better about not catching the Ripper by being so certain that he knew his identity, but I personally think Anderson was simply very good at puffing his accomplishments up, like an bureaucrat. Had he truly known who the Ripper was, why not arrest him? Why just tell everyone who'll listen you know who it is?
I am very interested to learn what Stewart has uncovered about Anderson, to see if it possibly dispells my opinion about the man's qualifications as a detective. I know many of you will think I'm being to harsh or critical of him, but I just find his vacation in the middle of this crisis to be unforgiveable, and admit that it slants my opinion.
B |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:11 pm | | "No evidence supports the contention that a witness saw an attack upon Stride."
Harry,
I'm going on Schwartz' statement made to Abberline, which is generally accepted. If you have posted a serious disputation of it, please direct me to it. Thank you.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 02:30 pm | | David,
We cannot afford to take Schwartz's statement as fact. It is, after all, merely a witness statement and as Dan and David J. have noted, witness statements are always reinterpreted and overanalyzed. And as Scott Medine and others have noted, they are rarely 100% accurate. There's just no concrete evidence that the people he saw that night were the Ripper and Stride, or Kidney and Stride. Or even just Stride. At its basic level, he claims to have seen a man and a woman together, and the man push the woman down. That's the "attack", but we can't be sure it was on Stride.
Granted, Schwartz identified the woman he saw as being Stride, but how can we be sure he wasn't wrong? Remember, Mrs. Mary Malcolm misidentified Stride's body as being the body of her relative, Elizabeth Watts, and this threw the investigation off for a time. So it's not impossible that Schwartz could have made a mistake.
I don't like resting any theories on witness accounts alone, and that makes this case extremely difficult to theorize about because there's little or nothing to base a theory on that cannot be challenged.
B |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 05:46 pm | | The notion of Levy being Anderson's witness is not considered by most researchers. Recall that Paul Begg found papers relating to the Naturalization Application of the furrier, Martin Kosminski, preserved in the Public Record Office. One of the persons who stood as Martin's "referee" was Joseph Hyam Levy. Levy was the same man who accompanied Lawende and Harris, when they supposedly saw Eddowes, just minutes before her mutilated body was discovered. Paul Begg wrote the following about Levy's sponsorship of Martin Kosminski: "...his name, address, occupation and signature put it beyond question that [Levy] was the same man." Furthermore, "It has to be said that the Levy-Kosminski connection could be a huge coincidence, but Kosminski was not a particularly common name, so the odds against such a coincidence must be considerable." [from the Uncensored Facts, p. 206-208]
Opinions discussed on the boards awhile back stated that this connection was a coincidence because Kosminski was a common name in London during the murders. However, it was not. In the 1881 census, for example, there were only three separate male Kosminski heads-of-households (Martin, Daniel and Philip). Martin's younger brother, Samuel, lived with him at the time. In the 1891 census, (as of yet without a name search feature), these same individuals are listed, along with an Isaac(s) and a Maurice. In the 1901 census, there were at least eleven male Kosminski heads of households throughout England/Wales, nine of which resided in London. This tally takes into account many of the spelling variations of "Kosminski." So if we assume that there were nine or ten Kosminskis in London during the murders, what are the odds that anyone who saw Eddowes shortly before her murder, would also have a prior association with a man named "Kosminski," a named Jack the Ripper suspect? I would say pretty astronomical, if it was a total coincidence.
Either that, or you allow for the possibility that the Spitalfields butcher, Joseph Hyam Levy, was somehow predisposed to sponsoring the naturalization applications of immigrant Jews from the Continent, and had done so many times before. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 06:13 pm | | Scott,
Speaking from memory only, but I will check, I think you'll find that this so-called strong connection was disposed of when it was proved that Martin Kosminski came from a totally different family to the one that Aaron Kosminski belonged to. I think you'll find that this is why Paul does not even mention Martin Kosminski in his new book. If you are in touch with Paul I am sure that he will give you the full details.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 07:50 pm | | | Levy was a butcher? Ahem. How long did he and Lawende walk along together after the sighting? |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 10:46 pm | | SCOTT, I'M SHOCKED!!!! Your post is shown as having been made at 5:46 PM, which is when the Oakland Raiders were at it in the AFC Championship Game!! What's wrong? How can I help?
David |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 11:02 pm | | Scott, Stewart and Diana,
Am I right in thinking that Mr. Begg has evolved his thinking more toward Schwartz as the witness?
David |
Author: David Radka
Sunday, 19 January 2003 - 11:10 pm | | "The most qualified and objective historian to have examined the subject is probably Phil Sugden. And he wastes no time at all in dismissing the Anderson-based theorising. Surely that must tell you something."
Stewart,
Sugden doesn't base his opinions on Anderson on historical work, but rather on his own unsubstantiated opinions. He opines that both Swanson and Anderson came to live in a world of their own self-serving self-deceptions, by which they both came to believe what they wanted to believe. This isn't history, because there are no historical documents to prove that these two men were this way. In fact, Begg has shown compellingly that both remained sane and sensible up to their deaths.
Both Anderson and Swanson were, as far as I can discern, responsible and respectable British gentlemen. God save them.
David |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 12:19 am | | Judith--Hi. At the risk of being a real bore, let me continue a wee bit. For the record, I agree with Stewart's thinking about Anderson,too. I think it's probably safe to say that Stewart has influenced my thinking about the case more than any one else. But I'm trying to give David's black hole methodology a bit of a go. "The case has no clues. We can only reflect the evidence in our minds. The case was this or that for Swanson because he was there"..., etc.
It seems to me that your beef is more with David than with me, but let's give him a fair shake.
If I understand David correctly:
1. We have no valid reason for doubting Anderson [nor Swanson]. If they leave us with a paradox, then we are stuck with it.
This means were are stuck with:
2. A witness who 'got a good look' at the murderer, and unhesitatingly identified him. Think what this means. This man knows the identity of "Jack the Ripper" (!)
3. Yet, alas, a witness that also refuses to testify against a fellow-Jew.
4. And yet another remarkable fact: Anderson didn't subpoena the witness [See D.R.'s post 16 January, 2003: 4:46 PM.] "It is extradordinary that [3] the witness was not subpoenaed."
5. The suspect was returned to his family's house and was watched by the City police. Ends up in the booby hatch.
Remember, these are facts, and, even if they seem hard to swallow, we have to accept them. [So the argument runs].
Now, number #4 is the one that concerns me. Why didn't Anderson subpoena the man that could identify Jack the Ripper, the man, that Swanson tells, could hang him.??
Let's not call it an 'inference.' Let's call it "reflecting on the evidence in our minds." How can we think past this confusing black hole? Let's give the Radka method a go. Why did this ex-barrister Anderson [who knew English law inside & out] not force his star witness to testify? Wouldn't it make the witness an accomplice after the fact? How do we resolve this "extraordinary" fact? It would be interesting to hear David's 'reflection' on this particular point. RJP |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 02:51 am | | David,
This statement of Schwartz to Aberline.Do you have knowledge of such,and can you give the relevent words that provide a basis for believing in an attack.
The Autopsy did not disclose any abraisions or marks that was consistant with an assualt by the drunk,and I repeat again,the only contact reported was a hand placed on her shoulder.
If you haven't seen my previous comments on this subject,then you haven't followed the threads closely.
It was either Arnold or Swanson from the police,who suggested an attack as witnessed by Schwartz had taken place.The police statement,which you state was taken by Aberline,
is not known to have survived,so it's contents are,as far as I am aware,unknown. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 03:03 am | | Stewart, to my knowledge, there has been no 'proof' that Martin Kosminski belonged to a different family than that of Aaron Kosminski, other than the fact that they were not brothers. But maybe you've heard differently, I don't know. Martin's wife, Augusta Barnett, was born in Houndsditch, Spitalfields. Her parents, Mortiz and Jetta, both Polish, had immigrated to London in the late 1840s, and probably lived in Spitalfields for many years. In fact, Martin and Augusta were married in the Great Synagogue on Duke St. in 1872. Augusta's long-time residence was thus close to that of Levy's on Hutchinson St. and the two families could have been well aquainted for many years. The request for Levy to sponsor Martin (and Samuel's) naturalization application could thus have come from Augusta's family. There may have been further family connections of Kosminskis to Levys that we are unaware of, as yet. Martin and his brother came to London around 1868. Some of the other Kosminskis that show up in later census surveys may have been related, but we just don't know.
Levy operated and lived in his butcher shop as far back as at least 1869, possibly earlier. Then, shortly after the April 1891 census, he leaves after so many years. Why? There was a Jacob Koski living next to Levy at #2 Hutchinson St. as far back as 1871. This person could have been the middle brother to Martin and Samuel, and he may have shortened his surname (his age is comparable to the Kalisz-born Jacob, the brother of Moseik [Martin] This Jacob and his family also appear in the 1891 census, then disappear in the 1901 census. (in the 1891 census, there were only 13 adult males surnamed "Koski" in England/Wales.)
The alleged Sadler identification sometime around February 16-17, 1891 is not recorded in any police records. Only the Daily Telegraph story on the 18th of February, reports this event. Who leaked it to the press and why? Could it have been some sort of diversion the police fed the press for the Kosminski identification? Was Sadler even confronted by a witness? With respect to the last question, why would the police attempt to have a witness identify Sadler as the Ripper if Anderson's witness (presumably Lawende) had already positively identified Kosminski as the murderer? Or Bury and Grainger afterwards?
I'm just throwing out ideas and questions here. Confused as ever.
Thanks for the interesting thread. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 03:14 am | | The debate about Kosminski always brings with it a feeling of deja vu. The same arguments were being made on these boards years ago, and Scott was proposing his 'alternative Kosminski' theory.
However, this merely goes to reinforce the view that the whole theory is so weak that it hangs on many 'what ifs', 'maybes', 'assuming thats' etc. that it ends up no stronger than any other theory. The 'Andersonites' end up choosing one of the following;
1. The suspect was Aaron Kosminski.
2. The suspect was 'David Cohen'.
3. 'Kosminski' was some other Kosminski than the above.
And confusion reigns amongst the 'Andersonites' themselves, with no common ground reached.
From examination of all the material, to the best of my belief, the Kosminski indicated by Macnaghten, Swanson, and by assumption Anderson (from what Swanson says), can only be Aaron Kosminski, as shown by what we know about him and the record of his incarceration.
So the whole thing remains a confused and contradictory mess, with no sign of any solid evidence to prove any real connection with the murders.
Phil Sugden is a very good friend of mine and I have discussed the Kosminski theory with him. I can assure you that he very carefully assesses his opinion on all the known material.
Anderson has been shown to have become forgetful and to have confused his memory around 1910. We do not know enough about the basis for what was said to be able to assess it properly. But no one has ever suggested that either man was not sane or sensible. Doubt is cast on Anderson's word in the new book Fenian Fire, which I suggest you read David. But all this argument over whether any one lied, 'gilded the lily', or indulged in wishful thinking, is irrelevant. For the one side will always believe one thing, whilst the other will believe the opposite.
Also the recorded words of both men do not entirely agree and both make contradictory statements. Add to that the rejection of Anderson's theory by other contemporaries and the whole is weakened even more. No, the Andersonites attach too much importance to what their man says, whilst others dismiss him too lightly. It's a classic impasse.
What is patently clear is that Anderson definitely did not know the identity of Jack the Ripper, but apparently thought that he did. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 03:32 pm | | Hi Stewart,
I appreciate your comments and work on the case but I have to respectfully, slightly disagree with you on this score.
I really do not favor a suspect. However, it seems to me, based Anderson and Swanson, that someone was identified.
You are certainly correct that we do not know the three most important components of this identification:
1. Who was the witness
2. What did the witness initially see and how did it relate to the suspect.
3. Who was the suspect
Anderson says that there was an identification - and Swanson later supported that claim and named the suspect. Everything else about the identification has been deductive.
I think what is fair to say is that the evidence indicates that someone identified Kosminski. I think we can also come to the conclusion that the authorities felt the identification was not dispositive.
I don't believe Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. But I do not think it is proven that he was not. Therefore, respectfully, I would disagree with your concluding paragraph.
Anderson thought he knew the identify of Jack the Ripper - but we do not know if he was correct.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Diana
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 05:17 pm | | | Erm -- I never realized that Levy was a butcher. Here we have a butcher in close proximity both in time and space to a ripper vic.[Hello - here we have anatomical knowledge] Does anybody know how much farther he walked with Lawende? Did the two of them separate fairly soon? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 05:57 pm | | Rich,
You sound just like Paul Begg!
Have you not read the above messages? No, we cannot presume that someone was identified. And you place your own caveat on this statement, i.e. - "based on Anderson and Swanson".
You even put a qualification in your second sentence, i.e. - "it seems to me".
You certainly don't sound very certain, but this just serves to underline what you are stating, i.e. your own opinion.
If you read the above posts you will see that I have already addressed your points:-
"Anderson says there was an identification..." -
Yes, he does, but was he lying, mistaken, 'gilding the lily', engaging in wishful thinking, confusing the issue, repeating what someone else had told him? We simply do not know. At best you can say that he believed what he was saying.
"Swanson later supported that claim..." -
Apparently so, but was Anderson's theory supplied to him by Swanson in the first place? In which case the support argument doesn't work. What Swanson said and wrote did not fully agree with what Anderson said. Was Swanson mistaken or muddled? Swanson no doubt saw the Macnaghten report of 1894 naming "Kosminski, a Polish Jew" as a suspect, and this could even be the source, many years later, for his annotation, "Kosminski was the suspect". It is highly unlikely that Anderson would have been personally involved in any identification attempt. We simply do not know for certain.
You are calling what Anderson and Swanson wrote evidence, but it is uncorroborated, lacks any independent confirmation, and is gainsaid by other contemporaries.
I have not said that it is proven that Kosminski was not 'Jack the Ripper', I have said that it is a pretty shaky theory. So shaky that two people who have studied the same evidence, Martin Fido and Paul Begg, cannot even reach the same conclusion and support the candidacy of the same suspect.
I don't see how you can say that you disagree with my final paragraph and then go on to say basically the same thing.
To know something is exactly what it says, and from all the statements of Anderson, especially the fact that we know he could not prove it, he did not know who the killer was, as we have both stated, "He thought he knew." Even if he was correct he could not know he was correct, otherwise he would have been able to prove that he was and the culprit would have been dealt with. By saying 'he thought he knew', admits of both possibilities, i.e. that he may have been right or he may have been wrong.
Whatever way you look at it, the answer is very far from certain.
Stewart |
Author: David Radka
Monday, 20 January 2003 - 11:48 pm | | I've looked into the pallid face of the deja vu naysayer. He repeats his lines to me over and again from the cobweb box of my VCR. I've felt the trembling of the indecisive Hamlet who didn't know what he had. And I've beheld the second tragedy of the overhasty Marc Antony, falling on his own sword a moment too soon. More of them I shall not say now.
But the bugle call of the A?R damns the darkness. CHARGE!!
David
PS This post is designed to be funny. I don't mean to insult anyone. |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 12:29 am | | | GOOD GRIEF, DAVID. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 01:31 am | | The Pall Mall Gazette of 7 May 1895 added an early idea of Swanson's thoughts on the case:
"Since the cessation of the Whitechapel murders there has been no lack of theories accounting for the disappearance of the author of those crimes, 'Jack the Ripper', as he is called, in consequence of a series of letters so signed, purporting, rightly or wrongly, to come from the murderer. The theory entitled to most respect, because it was preumably based on the best knowledge, was that of Chief Inspector Swanson, the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead." |
Author: Chris Phillips
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 04:29 am | | It's a good illustration of the difficulty of interpreting these reports, that if that was our only knowledge of Swanson's thinking, it would be natural to assume he was referring to Druitt (particularly as Macnaghten, the previous year, believed correctly that Kosminski was still alive).
Or perhaps that the belief that the Ripper was dead was simply a "theory" to account for the cessation of the killings, unattached to a particular suspect. |
Author: David Jetson
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 08:27 am | | Another possibility is that Anderson was simply making stuff up for the reporters, to make himself look clever. I don't ever hold much regard for what people say to reporters. Reporters themselves vary from the painfully honest to the complete barefaced liars, so that's another layer of "we don't know."
As it happens, I feel that the Cohen theory is the most likely one I've heard, but I'm not committed (sorry for the pun) to it. And I don't regard the Anderson/Swanson comments as particularly trustworthy. I think they contain elements of fact, but I wouldn't base anything on them by themselves.
For what it's worth, I think the Bury theory is also a possibility, and I'm open to the idea that it could have been Edward Buchan or someone of a similar degree of evidencelessness, which is a word I've just coined after a night out and 3 vodkas.
I don't think it's fair to say that the Cohen theory rests solely on the Anderswanson (qv) comments. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 09:11 am | | Hi Stewart,
I don't think our differences are pronounced as one might think.
I doubt that Kosminski/Cohen was Jack the Ripper - but I would not rule out the possibility either. I think that's a small difference from the position of Paul Begg and quite a big difference from Martin Fido.
I don't intend to misstate your position - but I think it is clear that you doubt that Anderson and Swanson corroborated an identification.
I suppose this has to do with how one looks at evidence. I find it compelling that both Anderson and Swanson agree about an identification (that is my view, not your's). Your interpretation is quite different.
From a historical context, if two different individuals make the same comment, I think the burden on the critic to disprove what they say. I understand that this is not readily accepted by many. It is simply my way of interpreting historical facts.
Anderson says Kosminski was identified. Swanson seems to verify this (I realize this is contentious and not proven). But I think that the weight of the evidence tilts in favor of Anderson and Swanson.
In your favor, and it is an important fact, is that if this happened as Anderson and Swanson described it, one would expect the evidence to be more widely known and readily accepted by their colleagues. To date, there is no evidence to support this.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Terry "Dont call me Hulk" Hogan
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 10:03 am | | (Quote)
I've looked into the pallid face of the deja vu naysayer. He repeats his lines to me over and again from the cobweb box of my VCR. I've felt the trembling of the indecisive Hamlet who didn't know what he had. And I've beheld the second tragedy of the overhasty Marc Antony, falling on his own sword a moment too soon. More of them I shall not say now.
But the bugle call of the A?R damns the darkness. CHARGE!!
David
(Unquote)
Dude, quit bogartin' the bong... |
Author: Chris Phillips
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 10:41 am | | My problem with interpreting Anderson's statement as a description of Cohen is this.
The sense of Anderson's statement seems to be as follows. The house-to-house enquiry eliminated single men in the area who lived alone, so it was concluded that the culprit did not live alone, but belonged to a community which would shield its members from the police - "low-class Polish jews". And this proved correct.
But Cohen apparently had no known relatives, so he doesn't fit the bill.
Nor would the statement about indemnification against a libel action make sense in relation to Cohen, as he was dead (unlike Kosminski). This is slightly less clear than it could be, as the murderer is coupled with the journalistic author of the Ripper letter.
I'm sure these points have been made before, but they leave me thinking that all three descriptions - Anderson's, Swanson's and Macnaghten's - are easier to interpret as describing Kosminski than Cohen. Albeit with inaccuracies, such as Swanson's statement that the suspect was dead. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 10:46 am | | Rich,
A question. You said "I suppose this has to do with how one looks at evidence. I find it compelling that both Anderson and Swanson agree about an identification (that is my view, not your's). Your interpretation is quite different.
From a historical context, if two different individuals make the same comment, I think the burden on the critic to disprove what they say. I understand that this is not readily accepted by many. It is simply my way of interpreting historical facts."
Under your assumption, since Swanson appears to confirm Anderson, you've got corroboration.
But isn't it equally as likely that Anderson got his information FROM Swanson? And therefore, he was merely repeating the position of someone who was more qualfied to take a position than he was?
Anderson was Swanson's superior, and since Anderson was out of town during many of the killings, I think it is a safe conclusion that much of the information that he learned about the crimes was based on Swanson's reports. So it seems logical to believe that any conclusions that Swanson made or would make would have a significant influence on Anderson's own conclusions.
I think all of us can recall a time when we've been able to influence our bosses' thinking in a similar way.
B |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 11:12 am | | Rich,
I think that it's the old 'keep an open mind' point again.
It is not a case of I doubt that that Swanson corroborated Anderson, but there must be an argument for both views. Logically there must be some doubt. To better appreciate this it is necessary to understand police hierarchy and how it works.
Anderson was an Assistant Commissioner and as such would not be involved in practical police work at ground level, such as identity parades. Normally, nor would a Chief Inspector. Swanson was in immediate charge of the Whitechapel murders inquiry and his reports were submitted to Anderson. Therefore, Anderson's knowledge derived from the information submitted to him by Swanson. Anderson's knowledge of the identification story, whatever form it took, could easily have reached him from Swanson.
Thus, when Swanson read Anderson's book and saw his remarks on the Ripper and the Polish Jew suspect, he then added further information to Anderson's account. Swanson also stated that Kosminski "...was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards..." (in 1895 Swanson had already stated that the believed murderer was dead). More inconsistencies.
Another point to remember is that Macnaghten was second in command to Anderson, he was Anderson's confidential assistant, and was of a much higher rank than Swanson. To suggest that Macnaghten would not know of the identification whilst Swanson did, if it took place, is beyond belief. Indeed, in his report of February 1894 Macnaghten names 'Kosminski, a Polish Jew', as one of three suggested suspects. He also said, "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer: many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one".
You said, "I suppose this has to do with how one looks at evidence." There are many forms of evidence, in this case you must be referring to legal evidence (which I assume you ascribe to me) and historical evidence which you (like Paul Begg)apparently prefer. The rules for historical evidence are far more lax than those for legal evidence and admit of more error, subjective interpretation and flexibility. I am happy to see suggested scenarios on the basis of historical evidence and there's nothing wrong with that. But let's not turn these scenarios into historical fact.
A lot also depends on Anderson's famous 'moral proof' as opposed to 'legal evidence of guilt'. Anderson's requirements for 'moral certainty' of someone's guilt fell far short of anything like real evidence of guilt, and I am surprised that a lawyer and senior police officer should make such statements. It seems to be a prime example of the dogmatic religious mind overruling the logical legal mind.
To sum up, there is absolutely nothing wrong in offering Kosminski as a suspect, he is historically valid, but he still remains a very highly unlikely candidate for the identity of Jack the Ripper.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 11:47 am | | Hi Brian,
Your scenario, as Stewart has suggested, is indeed plausible. It might even be true. It's one of the things we just don't know.
The problem is we do not know how Anderson came to the opinion that someone had been identified. Was this first hand knowledge, something Swanson told him, or something he heard from some other source?
This would be important in evaluating the statements put forth by Anderson and Swanson. I have no reason to doubt their integrity.
Based on their testimony, some kind of identification seemed to occur.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Chris Phillips
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 11:51 am | | Stewart P. Evans wrote:
To suggest that Macnaghten would not know of the identification whilst Swanson did, if it took place, is beyond belief.
Isn't it natural to think that Macnaghten was referring to the "identification" when he wrote of Kosminski, in his draft, "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square", confusion about the witness notwithstanding? |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 12:05 pm | | Hi Stewart,
You make, as usual, excellent points. And the questions you raise have long troubled me.
Nonetheless, it is Anderson's testimony that a witness identified a suspect. Swanson subsequently named who he believed the suspect was. Specifically why Swanson supported Anderson's comments is, as you have noted, unclear. Was Swanson merely confirming reports he himself had forwarded to Anderson? Or was Swanson engaging in educated guesswork in putting together Anderson's suspect and Macnaghten's "Kosminski." We simply do not know.
It seems to me, that if one doubts that an identification occurred, there can be only one of two explanations: that Anderson was being dishonest or that the information he based his assessment was faulty. I don't think we have any evidence to make such an assertion.
My view, based on the testimony of Anderson and Swanson, is that some sort of identification took place. And, at this point, I have not seen how such a mistake could have been made by both Anderson and Swanson if this did not happen. The only other alternative, it seems to me, would be dishonesty.
Your view on the differences between legal and historical fact certainly has merit. And your recounting of the inconsistencies and problems with the identification are important.
I suppose, for me to be persuaded that no identification occurred, I would need some kind of explanation how Anderson, and perhaps Swanson, came to believe one happened when it did not. Thus far, I haven't seen a logical explanation.
Even with our disagreement over the assessment of Anderson's tale, we are in full accord over Kosminski as a suspect. I agree with you completely that he is a valid though unlikely suspect.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 12:11 pm | | Hi All,
Well I have a question about the whole 'identification' process. According to what was said by Anderson and Swanson, the 'suspect' was moved to the Seaside Home so that he could be indentified by the 'witness'.
The question I have is, what made them suspect him of being Jack the Ripper in the first place?
I mean obviously they just don't take any lunatic that came from Whitechapel and move them around in hopes that a 'witness' can make an I.D. So what made them suspect this person?(Whether it be Kosminski/Cohen or whomever.)
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 01:11 pm | | Chris [Phillips] makes good point when he says that what Macnaghten said of Kosminski may refer to the identification, (albeit, apparently in error, when he says that the witness was 'the City PC', as we know of no City PC witness). [This from the Aberconway version of Macnaghten's report] For the Andersonites this would, in fact be additional support for the idea of an unrecorded identification actually taking place.
Rich, you call Anderson's writings 'testimony', which is a word usually used for sworn or affirmed evidence. However, it is also sometimes used for historical evidence (there's that semantics angle again). I think that 'Anderson's word' would be a better way to put it, (but then I would, wouldn't I?).
Swanson obviously thought highly of his old 'boss' and the annotations he made in the book were totally private and would never be revealed to the public in his lifetime. In this sense he was obviously happier to put down more than Anderson who, we know, felt constrained by the public nature of his reminiscences.
An identification did occur - in fact we are told of two, that in the case of Sadler in 1891 and the other in relation to William Grant in 1895. Apparently Lawende was used in both. I have already discussed the possibility that this provided the basis for the identification story. If this was the case, be it dishonesty, confusion, faulty memory or mistake we cannot say. I have not stated that it is the answer, merely that it should be considered and that it is wrong to say "Well, Anderson said it happened, so it must have done" and ignore the other possibilities. Yes we do have evidence for such an assertion, all the reasons that have been given before.
It is nice to see you use the words "It seems to me..." and "My view...is...", as this clearly shows that you are stating only your opinion. Why does everyone shy from the word 'dishonesty'? But it is not the only option as I have have shown. Anderson's own description of 'moral proof' casts huge doubt on his dogmatic claims as to the identity of the Ripper.
I am not out to convince you that no identification occurred, I am merely saying that both options must be considered and nothing taken for granted. If you can't see the logical explanation for 'how Anderson, and perhaps Swanson, came to believe one happened when it did not', then I can help you no more.
Chris [H], from what Macnaghten says there was nothing of a positive evidential nature against any of the named suspects. In the case of Kosminski he was not, as far as we know, actually arrested, but it was no doubt because of his behaviour as a result of his mental condition that he was brought under suspicion. Macnaghten does say that he was known to masturbate (presumably openly to have been seen), hated women (especially prostitutes) and had 'homicidal tendencies'.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 04:50 pm | | "Why does everyone shy from the word 'dishonesty'?"
Well, Stewart, I believe there are two positions with respect to Anderson's writings that are extreme, and require substantiation.
One is to say that Anderson/Swanson are literally correct, that an accurate and positive I.D. did take place, and the Ripper couldn't be prosecuted for the reasons stated.
I find this extremely hard to swallow, especially as we have to believe that the I.D.'ed Ripper was put away, but no asylum notes on anybody's case exist to indicate that they were indeed holding the Ripper, or more accurately, a Ripper suspect.
The other position which I find equally hard to swallow is that Anderson just out and out lied.
So, yes, I would shy away from making such an extreme statement.
In your book "Jack the Ripper - First American Serial Killer", on pp.157-158 you cite Major Griffiths' "excellent pen-picture" of Anderson, which I will briefly quote from:
"(Anderson)....was an ideal detective officer, with a natural bias for the work, and endowed with gifts peculiarly useful in it. He is a man of the quickest apprehension, with the power of close, rapid reasoning from facts, suggestions, or even impressions. He could seize on the essential point almost by intuition, and was marvellously ready in finding the real clue or indicating the right trail...."
I am not going to casually slander Anderson, although I am by no means an "Andersonite", appearances to the contrary!
I only "thought I knew".
Sir Robert |
Author: Stan Russo
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 06:05 pm | | Noel,
Sorry for the delay in responding. In my opinion of the case Littlechild was a desk jockey by 1888, similar to Swanson. Both were Chief Inspectors and Swanson's role during the murders in 1888 appears to be nothing more than desk jockey.
Monro knew what littlechild knew, but Anderson also knew the same. Why does Anderson never mention 'Fenian' in association with the murders? From MacNaghten we know there was a connection. From Monro we know there was a connection. And if you study the Swanson Marginalia you may interpret that the threatening letter that Macnaghten made 'undue fuss' over to Anderson had to do with the Fenian threat against Balfour, connected to 'JTR'.
The most important point to this discussion remains, 'How did MacNaghten get the name Kosminski'?
If MacNaghten made 'undue fuss' to Anderson about the Fenian letter against Balfour connected to 'JTR', then perhaps Anderson handed Kosminski over to him. MacNaghten was never a member of 'The Special Branch', as was Anderson, Monro, and Littlechild. The threat against Balfour was not his concern and way past his limits as an officer.
If there had been an identification of Kosminski, Cohen, or Nathan Kaminsky, Anderson would have told MacNaghten about it, and MacNaghten would have stressed this fact in his 1894 memorandum. Even Anderson, who more than likely rewrote MacNaghten's original draft report, never stresses any such identification. No identification is mentioned until 1910. Interestingly enough, in 1910, L. Forbes Winslow denied the claims that William Grant Grainger was 'JTR'. William Grant Grainger is the suspect mentioned in the 1895 Pall Mall Gazette article that attributes the best theory to Swanson. This article also mentions an eyewitness identification.
Who was the witness?
Who knows? Apparently not Swanson. he does name Kosminski as the suspect in his private copy of Anderson's memoirs, but not the witness. This tells me that he was not at any identification, and must have also received the name Kosminski directly from Anderson.
Why does Anderson never name his suspect in his 1910 book? Because if it were Kosminski he must have known that Kosminski, the suspect he gave to both MacNaghten and Swanson was still alive, and that his claims could be investigated and refuted.
Judith,
If the case will never be solved why don't we all just quit right now? The case might never be solved but new theories only help foster research and push the case further ahead. the same old argument exists as to tarnishing the good names of suspects like Dr. William Gull, Montague John Druitt, and James Maybrick. Gull the vivisectionalist, Druitt the probable ebephile, and Maybrick the arsenic addict and wife beater.
Same old argument that goes in circles. I shall continue researching and coming up with new possible solutions. And by the way Stewart does believe a specific suspect is 'JTR'. He just has the credibility and reasoning to admit that there is not enough evidence to prove his beliefs.
Stewart,
I hate to say this but I have to disagree with you on one point, kind of. "What is patently clear is that Anderson did not know the identity of Jack the Ripper, but apparently thought he did".
I hate to say this but I believe you give to much credit to Anderson with this statement. I believe Anderson knew Kosminski was not 'JTR' and gave him to MacNaghten to shy MacNaghten away from the Fenian threat against Balfour seen by Douglas C. Browne in 1956 connected to 'JTR'. If this letter existed, which there is corroborative proof that it did, Anderson knew there was a Fenian connection to the murders, which meant that it could not have been Kosminski. In this scenario Anderson is an outright liar, or a protector of the secrets of the 'Special Branch' that he had belonged to for over 20 years.
Man I'm tired.
STAN |
|
|
|
|
