|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 23 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: Police Officials:
Dr Robert Anderson:
Archive through 23 January 2003
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 06:55 pm |        | Let me emphasize a second time my post above was designed to be humorous. NO KNOCK AGAINST ANYONE.
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 07:00 pm | | | ...tick...tick...tick...tick... |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 07:26 pm | | Hi Stewart,
I am aware of some of the scenarios you have mentioned before as an explanation for the alleged identification. And, to my mind, they are indeed plausible.
To some extent your remarks confirm my own view. I do believe that some identification did occur that Anderson and Swanson refer to. Whether it was Kosminski, Cohen, or Sadler or Grant or Humpty Dumpty, we simply do not know. I think it highly probable that the person identified was not Jack the Ripper.
So, perhaps, I should clarify my position. I believe the testimony and evidence supports the fact that a witness identified a suspect. We don't know who the suspect was, or even if he was Jack the Ripper. Anderson believed the suspect to be Jack the Ripper. Swanson suggested the suspect was Kosminski.
It is possible that Anderson lied. But I have no reason to believe so.
I would concur completely, and this is where I would depart from Mssrs. Begg and Fido, I doubt the suspect identified was Jack the Ripper.
Thanks, as always, Stewart for your time and information.
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 10:16 pm | | Except for the question of Anderson's Ripper, everything discussed on this web site is nothing. The Diary, Cornwell, Sooty, D'Onston, Bury, everything. I mean EVERYTHING but Anderson is NOTHING. The only some thing in Ripperology is Anderson. Either Anderson up or Anderson down, THAT IS THE QUESTION.
All the major Ripperologists know this. Since they cannot answer the question directly, then Ripperology consists in the deepest sense for them in a kind of soil into which they can plant their idea on Anderson for future generations. That is the game entirely. That's Ripperology in toto. Ripperology is rather a race on the part of a number of males to be the one to impregnate a single available female. The one that wins is the one who gets his DNA carried forward--all the rest lose. Everything or nothing, eternal life or meaningless death. I can see all of them doing this. We here are all of this question, whether we know it or not.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 11:18 pm | | David,
I know you don't want to give away your theory or anything, but how is a medium-level bureaucrat who wasn't even in the country for half of the murders the key to solving the case?
Just wondering.
And I know that I'm exaggerating and completely underplaying Anderson's importance to the case in my posts, so recognize that I'm a politician-in-training and hyperbole is my friend. 
B |
Author: Stan Russo
Tuesday, 21 January 2003 - 11:35 pm | | Brian,
I hate to do this but I have to agree with David Radka that Anderson's value to solving this case is severely undervalued still.
Unfortunately, I don't believe that David Radka understands the key to Anderson's supreme importance. Perhaps no one ever will.
STAN |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 01:00 am | | Mr. Russo,
May I ask why you hate to agree with me? Is it anything personal? Why do you not believe that I hold the key to Anderson's significance?
David |
Author: Garry Ross
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 01:21 am | | David,
What do you mean by saying it wasn't Sooty? *rips up years of work*
Back to the old drawing board for me.
If we are to look at the analogy of the circumspect of the incontrovertible of what is but also isn't then I think you may agree that running almost secondary in the rotation to all thought forms is that which IS.
Of course I may be wrong due to the fact that today is my birthday and I've started to celebrate a bit too early in the day for my own good so I reckon I'm allowed to be weird in just one post today.
I thankyou
take care
Garry
Blimey, no typos! |
Author: Stan Russo
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 01:47 am | | Mr. Radka,
1st - nothing personal
2nd - I hate to agree with you because your posts are often, to put it kindly, ridiculous and as far away from the topic as England is from the United States.
3rd - I do not believe you hold the key to Anderson's significance because of my own ego. I believe I hold the key. The same way you flaunt but hold back your AR theory I shall keep my full theory hidden about Anderson until it is published one day.
Maybe you know what I know. Maybe you don't. Maybe we are both wrong.
BUT NEVER PERSONAL
STAN |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 02:41 am | | Before going any further could we all consider, please, Anderson's idea of moral proof?
"I remember on one occasion how Sir Robert positively thrilled me while relating an incident which occurred during his term of office, and which illustrated his argument as to the difference between moral and legal proof. There had been a mysterious murder in the West End, and as no clue had been left behind by the culprit the police were at a loss. A woman had been strangled in bed. A certain man, a relation of the dead woman, was very abusive towards the police for failing to arrest the murderer. In fact he was so active in his hostility that he aroused Sir Robert's suspicions. So he decided to apply a test. He gave orders that this man should be summoned to Scotland Yard, and that he should be shown into his, Sir Robert's, private room. Then, with the man seated in front of him, and nobody but their two selves in the room, the Commissioner, fixing a steady gaze on his visitor, declared that the murderer had been found.
The man turned deathly pale and trembled in his chair, but said nothing. Then Sir Robert went on to describe how a test had been applied to the eye of the dead woman. A photograph, a 'close-up' photograph, had been taken of one of the eyes, with the result that a clear image of the murderer was found imprinted upon the dead woman's retina! It was partly an invention. Such an experiment had in fact been made, but proved futile. However, the man did not know. "Then", exclaimed Sir Robert, "I was morally certain that I had the murderer before me!"
Nothing, however, unfortunately could be done. It was merely moral and not legal evidence. So the murderer went unpunished. Of course the police were blamed. But were they to blame?" - Behind the Scenes at Scotland Yard.
So this is a stated example of how Anderson could be certain of someone's guilt but unable to prove it. Just imagine how this 'suspect' must have felt. Sitting in the Assistant Commissioner's office at Scotland Yard with the Assistant Commissioner virtually accusing him of being the murderer. No wonder the man "turned deathly pale and trembled in his chair", I should think that anyone would! If he was innocent, he probably thought that he was about to be fitted up for a murder he had not committed.
This illustration serves to show that Anderson could and did lie, if he felt the occasion warranted it (I am aware that the Andersonites claim that he only did this where a 'criminal' was involved), and that when he thought that he was right it was okay to be devious. This man, despite Anderson's words, did not admit that he had killed the woman, and may well have been innocent. In Anderson's eyes he was forever guilty. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 04:46 am | | In answer to David's comments above, I would say the following.
Yes, Anderson was a very important official, but that importance can be overstated. There was a period, when Kosminski replaced Druitt as 'the most preferred suspect'. Anderson's importance and validity was boosted and stressed by certain writers who based their assessment of suspects primarily on his word. Signally they stressed his plus points but failed to mention anything that militated against him (notably several of the points raised above). This selectivity does not assist the reader in making a fair assessment of Anderson and what he said.
I guess that by dismissing everything but Anderson, David could win the cognomen David 'Radical' Radka. David is to be congratulated for his tenacity and his undoubted dedication to the subject.
It is interesting to see that David thinks that everything in 'Ripperology' (a word I dislike) hinges on Anderson. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything must be looked at and everything must be assessed in order for the individual to reach his own conclusions on the case. To say "All the major Ripperologists [whoever they may be, and again a word I dislike] know this." This statement is simply not true, as a reading of certain books, e.g. Melvin Harris and Phil Sugden, will show.
Many questions in the study of the Whitechapel murders cannot be 'answered directly', but from all the available evidence it is patently obvious that we cannot accept Anderson simply at his word. Personally I find him an important and fascinating character, hence I have done much research on him and have found new material. I also have a large collection of his personal correspondence that I purchased some time ago.
Everyone who writes and analyses, presents evidence and states their opinion on various aspects of the case, or, as David would have it, 'plant their idea on Anderson for future generations'. He somewhat misses the point. I have clearly stated my opinion on Anderson but I do not demand that everyone agrees with me. However, what I do like to see is a presentation of as much information on Anderson (and anyone else for that matter), so that a better assessment is possible utilising all that is known. That is not 'planting ideas', it is presenting material for assessment and interpretation. For many years certain information on Anderson has been either omitted, lightly dismissed or not known.
I am still trying to work out the idea of "a race on the part of a number of males to be the one to impregnate a single available female" but is is obviously an allegory on the race of the beings he sees as 'Ripperologists' to be the one to succeed in swaying all others to his viewpoint thus succeeding in becoming the one to advance and immortalise his own ideas. (I hope I got that right as, I am not a philosopher and I never was particularly clever). With his 'final solution', I guess that David aspires to be 'The One'. (Shades of The Matrix!)
Personally, believing as I do that the case will never be resolved, I think that the presentation of all that is known and an objective study of all the material for a better understanding is the goal to aim for. Thus all my recent works have been along these lines - reference works. Count me outta the race!
As for the meaning of life - that's also beyond me David. Keep up the good work.
Stewart
P.S. Stan, I think you've got it wrong about Anderson and his value to solving the case. First it will not be solved and secondly some undervalue Anderson's contribution whilst others overvalue it. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:14 am | | While the identification is under discussion, could I ask the following - which seems such an obvious question that I feel it must have been discussed before?
It seems odd that the suspect should have been taken to the Seaside Home for identification, as stated by Swanson. Sugden remarks on this, but only offers the suggestion that it might have been done outside London to escape publicity (which seems a very inadequate explanation).
One obvious reason would be that the witness in question was already at the Seaside Home - especially if one makes the connection with Macnaghten's statement about the jewish suspect bearing a strong resemblance to a man seen by a "City PC".
I have a vague memory of seeing this idea discounted on the basis that jewish police officers were a rarity at the time, and that a police officer would not "refuse to testify". Even if these statements are correct (and I believe it's only Swanson who says the witness was jewish, and speculates on his reasons for "refusing to testify"), could it be that more than one witness was involved in this identification - a police officer and another - Lavende or Schwartz?
Anyhow, what I wanted to ask was whether any records are known to exist of the police officers who were at the Seaside Home in this period. Even if not, the 1891 census might be close enough to Kosminski's admission to Colney Hatch to be useful (assuming Kosminski was the suspect identified).
I suppose PC Smith is well enough documented to rule him out as an inmate of the Seaside Home in early 1891? |
Author: David Jetson
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:33 am | | There is actually a lot of dispute about what the "Seaside Home" actually was... I think there's some good stuff in the Dissertations on that topic. Like everything else about this case, there is a lot of uncertainty and a lot of conflicting theories and very little that can be definately called proven fact.
I do think that some kind of ID happened, beyond that is conjecture - who the suspect and the witness were, where, and when. Lots of opinion, little fact.
Getting back to Anderson himself, I agree that he seems to have had an inflated sense of his own talents as a policeman. I don't think he deliberately lied in his comments, but I think it likely that he was falling into that familiar trap of mistaking opinion for evidence. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 08:13 am | | | Dear David-- I'm afraid to report that I personally know that you are bluffing. Anderson got it wrong, and this will be proven shortly. Signed, One Who Knows. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 09:02 am | | Just to go on a bit further, as mentioned by Scott Nelson in his piece on the "Seaside Home", Macnaghten's statements about the "City PC" are echoed by his journalist correspondent G. R. Sims, a number of whose articles are in the "press reports" section of this site.
Sept.22, 1907
One man only, a policeman, saw him leaving the place in which he had just accomplished a fiendish deed, but failed, owing to the darkness, to get a good view of him. A little later the policeman stumbled over the lifeless body of the victim.
(This sounds rather like Stephen White's sensational account, published in 1919, which is difficult to relate to the known circumstances of any of the murders.)
And later in the same article:
The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 10:45 am | | Hi Stewart,
I hold no brief for Sir Robert Anderson - but I think the events you describe are not comparable to his memiors.
Anderson was attempting, no doubt, to bluff a suspect - as you know, a not uncommon practice among police. Anderson, more than likely, believed the man guilty. And we can certainly question his judgement with regard to his tactics and conclusion.
I think it is fair to say that Anderson claimed to have instincts and hunches about things with dubious accuracy. This is quite different from lying.
To lie, in my view, would be for him to know that a man was innocent and proclaim his guilt.
I suppose to some extent we are dealing with semantics.
Anderson felt there was a witness who correctly identified a suspect as Jack the Ripper. Now, he may have wrongly interpreted the event, or gave it more credibility than he should have, but I don't think we have any evidence to support the contention he invented the event. Especially since there is corroboration from Swanson.
I concur with your view about Anderson - there are some positives about him and some important negatives. I think anyone who has read his works knows that he is prone to exaggeration and an inflated sense of self-importance.
That is why I believe the identification he referred to probably did happen. Yet he came to a conclusion that few others did relating to it - that it resulted in a rightful fingering of Jack the Ripper. In this regard, I believe it likely that he was wrong.
My personal view is that, more than likely, Schwartz identified Kosminski as the man who attacked Stride. This was good enough for Anderson. However, many of the authorities felt that either the identification was hesitant or inadequate in some way.
Anderson believed the witness refused to testify against the suspect because he was Jewish. This could be sheer surmize on Anderson's part (much like his ridiculous view that he saved lives by telling women to stay off the streets). What may have happened is the witness was uncertain (ie "this man could have been the one") and Anderson choose to believe that the witness refused to testify over the Jewish question.
Whatever the case, there is no evidence to support the view Anderson was lying - though it is certainly possible he was, as often the case, mistaken.
Regards, |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 02:10 pm | | Rich,
With all due respect I have read nearly all that you have just posted in the books and other writings of Paul Begg. Indeed, a much of what you think about the 'identification' and the witness is to be found in his latest book.
Now I don't want to get into a long debate over who the witness was, but the actual use of Lawende militates against it being Schwartz (for this see posts above). Despite the contrived arguments to be found for suggesting that Schwartz is a 'better' candidate.
How you can say "I think that the events you describe are not comparable to his memoirs", I do not know. It is an instance of the man lying (and there are others), for whatever reason, and unless you can tell what motivated his actions and went through his mind how can you categorically say that he would not lie, when he obviously did.
For you to also say that for him to lie, in your view, "would be for him to know that a man was innocent and proclaim his guilt" is specious, a symptom of Andersonite argument. For in this example he lied to the man that 'the murderer had been found', and that 'a clear image of the murderer was found imprinted on the woman's retina'. Whatever his motives, these are lies and the man may have been totally innocent.
With regard to his 'Jack the Ripper' identification story, however, no one is categorically saying that he lied, for confusion, the possibility of someone else lying and Anderson believing them, false memory etc. all come into the equation.
Your arguments are patently based on secondary information and opinion you have gleaned from, in the main, other Ripper books. Have you actually read Anderson's books and the other works that touch on the man and his actions? If you haven't, perhaps you should.
How can you say that "many of the authorities felt that either the identification was hesitant or inadequate in some way."? We have no evidence that 'many of the authorities' knew about such an identification as described in the Swanson/Anderson secnario.
What you say is conjecture, opinion and hypothesis. There is no evidence to support either view, and the possibility must remain for the suggested alternative scenarios. Unless, of course, something of a more evidential nature is found.
Stewart |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 03:10 pm | | Hi Stewart,
I respect your view and candidly believe it may very well be correct. However, in some ways, on this topic, I do not share your view.
Yes, I have read Paul Begg's works - and your's, and Rumbelow's, and Sugden's, and countless others. I believe all of you offer information and interpretations of merit.
I have also read some of Anderson's writings and am familiar with the charges you make against him - exaggerating and distorting. And this obviously mitigates against what he has said.
Your example of Anderson lying to a suspect about the evidence he had against him, in order to attempt to extract a confession, is much different than pronouncing to the world he knew who Jack the Ripper was. I do know, at least in the United States, it is established police procedure to lie to suspects during interrogations in order to extract confessions. I do not believe it is established police procedure to write books claiming to have solved an unsolved murder when in fact you know your suspect was innocent.
When you ask how I can say "many authorities felt that either the identification was hesitant or inadequate in some way" you have removed the context. What I said in full context is that I "believe" an identification did occur that convinced Anderson or Swanson or both that the killer had been identified. However, apparently such an identification was not convincing enough to persuade anyone else. This is my conjecture.
I have no idea who the witness or the suspect was - my view is that it probably was Schwartz but as you mentioned it very well could be Lawende. I do not even know who the suspect was - the only indicator is an ambiguous comment by Swanson.
I think it is a bit unfair to say I am merely parroting what Paul Begg thinks and feels. I differ from his view of the "identification" in many respects: most importantly that I do not believe Kosminski was Jack the Ripper and I believe Anderson may have been entirely wrong about the identification. I do not believe Kosminski is a good suspect - and Mr. Begg apparently does.
What I do believe, based on first hand sources and reading many different authors on the case, is that Anderson believed there was an identification of the killer. Swanson believed the suspect was Kosminski. I do not, and have not, endorsed the view that indeed the killer was identified.
Do I repeat what other authors have written? Of course, I do. I do not deny that. I find Begg's view that some identification took place persuasive. Much like, on another thread, I have mentioned that I find your view persuasive about the doubts regarding Stride and Kelly being Ripper victims.
I do not wish to get entangled in any feuds among those who have written on the case (which I fear I have) and I apologize for doing so.
I think you are one of the best historians on the case - and your reference work is in my estimation the best on the case. We simply disagree on this one element and, as you make clear, you believe it is based on my lack of knowledge. That may very well be true.
But, I in no way wish to give offense.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Billy Markland
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 03:19 pm | | Chris P., I wonder if the account is not muddled and should have said a City Detective? Detectives Halse, Outram, and Marriott were the first (per Sugden) detectives at the site. Upon arrival at Mitre Square, they split up and began searching the neighborhood. Halse states that he stopped and questioned two men himself who gave satisfactory answers. Likely, although guessing, the other two did the same.
Is it conceivable that one of them did stop someone who matched Lawende's later discription (unknown during their search) but would have been able to recognize the person due to having closely inspected them in their search? I feel that it may have been either Outram, Marriott, who were not called to testify during the inquest
If so, this identification considered with the lack of "dripping knife" the night of the murder when stopped and Lawende's admission that he would unlikely be able to recognize the person he described again may have contributed to Anderson's "moral certainty" that he knew who the killer was.
Stewart, my apology for the "conjecture, opinion and hypothesis" as that is exactly what it is
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Jeff Murrish
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 04:05 pm | | | That is the problem (and the joy) about JTR. There is much fodder for conjecture and hypothesis, and fewer hard facts than needed for a solution. We all must operate on our differing levels of conjecture. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 04:37 pm | | "I do not wish to get entangled in any feuds among those who have written on the case (which I fear I have) and I apologize for doing so."
Richard, IMHO this is indeed what we are witnessing here on the Casebook. One author that we all respect is miffed that another author, who we also all respect, has been relatively dismissive of "his" suspect in a new and well received book. What we are actually seeing is a Tumblety versus Kosminski proxy war. The pity is that Anderson's reputation has to be besmirched in the process.
From Paul Begg's new book:
"(Anderson's) character has been torn apart to find evidence of dishonesty, boastfulness, inability to accept failure, ineptitude and other foibles and failings. But at the end of the day none of the arguments seem to hold together. He siad as early as 1901 that the Ripper had been "safely caged in an asylum". It wasn't a matter of wishful thinking, confusion or a faulty memory. Unless someone can produce evidence that Anderson lied, there WAS a suspect, there WAS a witness and there WAS an identification; Anderson came away from it believing that the suspect was guilty."
Sir Robert |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:11 pm | | Rich,
With regard to the case where Anderson was interviewing the man whom he believed to have killed the woman, the man was not under arrest for there was no hard evidence. Anderson merely thought that the man was guilty and accordingly 'had him invited' to his office. There he lied to the man. It was not an interrogation on an arrested suspect, which is the parallel you draw.
It is certainly not police procedure in this country to 'lie to suspects during interrogations in order to extract confessions' and such an interrogation would be valueless and the officer would be in serious trouble.
The full paragraph of yours that I quoted from read:
"My person view is that, more likely, Schwartz identified Kosminski as the man who attacked Stride. This was good enough for Anderson. However, many of the authorities felt that either the identification was hesitant or inadequate in some way."
Now, to a newcomer reading that it could indicate that 'many of the authorities' knew about the identification.
More to follow.
Stewart |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:26 pm | | Dear Sir Robert [& etc.]---if there WAS an identification, pray tell, why wasn't there a trial and a hanging? As I pondered in the earshot of Mr. Radka the t'other day, why wasn't this super witness slapped with a subpoena? There must have been other evidence against the hapless Kosminksi for him to have fallen under police notice in the first place. And yet...nothing. Hell, he was even returned to his family and allowed to roam around freely.
And what do we get from Sir Robert years later?
"I should almost be tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer...provided the publishers would accept all responsibility in view of a possible libel action."
Doesn't sound like the statement of someone with a lot of evidence.
Really, I honestly believe it all boils down to a certain stubborn way Sir Robert had of phrasing things. To many in the 19th Century, doubt was a sign of weakness. Some even thought of it as an unmanly sin. So Sir Robert stated his opinion as though it were an absolute fact. Take the authorship of the "Dear Boss" letter. Macnaghten "felt he could discern the stained forefinger of the journalist'. Littlechild said "it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen...was the originator....". But to Anderson, this becomes certainty. "I will only add here that the 'Jack the Ripper' letter...is the creation of an enterprising journalist." That's just the way Sir Robert operated. He was dogmatic. It was the water he swam in.
One must also remember that Anderson's claims about Jack the Ripper came in the middle of a discussion about police work and the difference between "moral" and "legal" evidence. This has been stressed by Stewart & others in the past, but it is often forgotten. Anderson is clearly saying that there was no legal evidence against Kosminksi. But he [Anderson] felt "morally" certain. It doesn't get any plainer than that.
Not a bad guy, of course. Probably would have made a good neighbor.
As for the witness and Macnaghten's memo. Along side the bit about the 'City PC' it should be remembered that Macnaghten had earlier written: No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer...
Wow. This is coming from a guy that knew about Kosminski. Frankly, it sounds to me like he heard Anderson's theory one time too many.
All in my humble opinion, of course. Best wishes. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 05:39 pm | | With regard to Schwartz as 'Anderson's witness' (which I don't think he was), the following, as previously explained, should be borne in mind. Schwartz saw a woman standing in the gateway to the yard in Berner Street and a man stopped to speak with her. The man tried to pull the woman into the street, but turned her round and threw her down on the footway and the woman screamed three times but not very loudly. This was all that Schwartz saw, he did not see the man murder the woman and this was at 12.45 a.m. Stride was found murdered inside the gateway at about 1.00 a.m. Also, the man knew that two people had seen him so if he was the killer is it likely that he would still go on to murder her?
Anyone who has seen a prostitute 'working' a chosen spot will know that she can accost or be accosted by any number number of clients in fifteen minutes. And assault is a a frequent occupational hazard. If Schwartz had identified the man he saw assault the woman, all the man would have to say would be yes, he assaulted the woman over something she had said, or whatever, and then he had left. Therefore, someone else must have killed her over the next fifteen minutes after he left. Certainly there is no way that Anderson could describe Schwartz as "the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer" when, in fact, no one ever saw a victim murdered.
More to follow. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:11 pm | | Rich,
Most of the authors on this subject have differing opinions, but also agree on many other things. The most hotly debated areas are when it comes to suspects, which is why I try to remain objective. This is not a thread started to vilify Anderson, it was started to look at much ignored aspects on Anderson, such as the 1889, R. Harding Davis piece and was prompted by recent material I discovered on Anderson, as can be seen by anyone who cares to look at the initial posts.
I do not quite understand your "entangled in any feuds" remark, but I suspect it is as a result of my previous comments concerning Paul. Paul is a leading authority on the case and, especially, this particular aspect. Therefore, no debate on Anderson could really take place without Paul being mentioned or quoted. It's a pity that he's not taking part. This is not a new area of disagreement and we have shared debates such as this one in the past. Our views haven't changed. Paul is not as rigid as I am with regard to evidence, but having been a police officer for over 27 years my forensic and evidential skills were gained through experience in the hardest school of all, policing at the 'sharp end'. It would be a rather boring and unproductive situation if we did all agree. So 'experts' for all points of view are required. And it is good that Anderson has his informed advocate in the shape of Paul. Because if all denigrated and dismissed him, an important and relevant commentary would be lost. We don't have 'feuds' we have academic disagreements. At least I hope that they are academic.
However, I feel that some of the important parts of the historical record on Anderson have been omitted or ignored over the years and many readers of certain books are not aware of them. But Paul, like me, accepts that the case is not solved and does not dogmatically proclaim that Anderson had actually identified the Ripper. He does, however, think that Anderson is the best of the commentators on this aspect. I know that you have your own opinions but a lot of your quotes were very much like Paul's. But I do not think that you were merely 'parroting' him, he has detailed a lot of material on Anderson and is an informed source for you to use.
I know all of the other Ripper authors and few of us agree with each other on opinion as to the best suspect. That is the nature of the subject. Phil Sugden is a very good friend of mine, we do not agree in our thoughts on suspects, as will be seen from the introduction to Phil's latest edition. But we are not feuding. It will be a sorry day when we can't discuss our differing opinions. I guess that in the final reckoning we will all be judged on what we have written.
Thank you for your kind words Rich, although as a historian I would rate myself as an amateur. However, I have studied this case for nearly forty years and took photographs of the murder sites, and visited the London Hospital on research, back in 1967. In those heady days 29 Hanbury Street was still there, and so were George Yard Buildings. Mitre Square and Buck's Row (Durward Street) were also much unchanged from 1888.
So, to reiterate, I argue for objectivity, looking at all the material available, common sense, and fairness.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Stan Russo
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:21 pm | | Anderson debators,
I will attempt to soldiify Anderson's unreliability through the asking of some basic questions.
STEWART,
Who gave the name Kosminski to MacNaghten?
STAN |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:27 pm | | STAN,
I don't know, do tell me.
STEWART |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:37 pm | | The same who gave the same to Swanson.
David |
Author: Stan Russo
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:41 pm | | Stewart,
I would assume it was Anderson.
Knowing what we now know about Kosminski, MacNaghten would have to have gone into the asylum records to find Kosminski. He would have had to gather this information in only 10 days, as his report was filed 10 days after The Sun's claims against Cutbush.
So if we assume that it was Anderson who gave the name Kosminski to MacNaghten, we arrive at another basic question,
Why doesn't MacNaghten mention the witness identification that Anderson later attributes to his suspect?
STAN |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 06:53 pm | | '...And the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper" scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.' - Sir Robert Anderson, The Lighter Side of My Official Life, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1910, page 137.
No it wasn't a death from natural causes. Three doctors stated it was murder, the coroner's jury returned a verdict of murder against a person or persons unknown, and it remained on the police files at Scotland Yard as an unsolved murder.
So I ask, here, was Anderson lying, simply mistaken (I doubt it with all the fuss that was made at the time with Anderson trying to write it off as a death from natural causes), confused or what?
I think you can parallel this one more to the questions being asked of Anderson's word. It is a known fact that he was very sensitive about unsolved murders and press criticism during his 'reign' in the C.I.D.
What are your thoughts on this one Rich? |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 07:42 pm | | "Dear Sir Robert [& etc.]---if there WAS an identification, pray tell, why wasn't there a trial and a hanging?"
R.J.,
I have no clue. All I believe is that some form of identification took place with some sort of suspect and some sort of witness. I don't believe for a minute that Anderson actually I.D.'ed the Ripper in any way that would stand up in court. I think they put some poor "Insane Polish Jew" away and when the murders stopped they grew even more convinced over the years that they had indeed "gotten their man".
I just think that it's wrong to assert he was lying without any proof to back up the assertion.
Sir Robert |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 08:02 pm | | Hi Stewart,
Thank you for your earlier post and the summary of the disagreements with you and Paul. I probably should not have used the word "feud" with its hostile connotations. I do recall vividly the days when you and Paul Begg debated this very subject on the boards and it, as far as I can recall, was always civil and informative. What I meant to say is that I am not taking sides between varying opinions and attempting to state I know as much about the case as either of you.
As an aside, I am glad that in your country the police are not allowed to lie to people they suspect of crimes - in this country it is an allowed procedure for interrogations.
I think our interpretation of Anderson is merely different. With your police training, I know you seek a higher standard than I, or even perhaps Paul, in assessing probabilities. However, when assessing someone a liar I am very reluctant to do so.
In the first circumstance you mentioned, where Anderson lied to someone he suspected of murder in order to trick him into a confession, I see that differently then making false claims in a book.
As to the Poplar case, I don't mean to be maddingly difficult, but I do not think that shows Anderson was a liar. It does suggest, as I have never disputed, he said things that were untrue. I see it as a subtle difference.
Based on my readings of Anderson, and here I depart from Mr. Begg, is he comes off to me as highly egotistical - that he came to quick conclusions often based on limited fact, and sometimes ignored any subsequent evidence that contradicted his own notions.
For example, when Anderson claimed credit for the murders stopping after he supposedly warned prostitutes to stay off the street, I think he is wrong but I don't think he is lying. I take him at his word that he actually believes something that is untrue.
Please do not construe this to mean I am an "Andersonite." I think frequently he did delude himself in a way that always upon reflection made him look more favorable. This he does time and time again in his memoirs and recollections.
Anderson, in my view, did not want to see the Poplar case as murder - he therefore arrogantly ignored all evidence to the contrary.
I think our differences over Anderson are more about semantics.
My view is that Anderson believed there was an identification. Secondarily, and I understand that based on ambigious wording this is in dispute, Swanson indicated that Kosminski was identified.
As you noted earlier, in your description of what Schwartz saw, which is frequently misunderstood, no witness to murder actually occurred.
This is why I believe it is possible that Schwartz was shown Kosminski and stated he saw him, or someone like him, assaulting Stride. This does not mean that Kosminski killed Stride. And even if he did, for the reasons you have mentioned in your writings, this does not mean that Stride's killer was Jack the Ripper.
In any case, I would disagree with Mr. Begg's position that Anderson is the best source of the case. Like most sources, he is flawed and frequently in error.
It is possible, as you have suggested, that Anderson was lying. I think it more likely that he saw events through the prism of his own egotistical delusions.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 10:04 pm | | A question of epistemology.
The essential question of Ripperology concerns Anderson. We frame that question by asking: How did Anderson know what he knew? This solves the case.
We know some things but don't know quite all we think we know. We use epistemology to shrink down what we think we know to what we really do know, by subjecting ourselves to rigorous criticism. And thus we subject Anderson to the same rigors to determine how he knew what he knew.
When we come to know how we know, then we know that we know what we know.
David |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 11:18 pm | | "Excuse me, sir. Seeing as how the V.P. is such a V.I.P., shouldn't we keep the P.C. on the Q.T.? Cause of the leaks to the V.C. he could end up M.I.A., and then we'd all be put out in K.P."
David's post reminded me of that.
In any event, I think we're splitting hairs here. Stewart's posts demonstrate that Anderson was more than willing to bend the facts to fit his ideas, and I think that this is exactly what happened here.
Stewart, it's a common practice of US cops to mislead suspects in interrogations. There have been tons of examples of this, many are considered legal and have been tested in court. It's called "reasonable deception" and it's perfectly legal. Examples include telling a suspect during an interrogation that you found his prints on the murder weapon, or taking his shoes and claiming to have found blood on them, or even walking a co-suspect in front of the door to the interrogation room, and telling him that his buddy fingered him for the crime and is going home, so if he knows what really happened he should speak up. There's tons of examples of it.
But Anderson - not being a detective, never having been a detective - doing something like that and merely pronouncing the man guilty based on body language is irresponsible - almost as irresponsible as going on vacation when you've got a killer running around (I say that not because his vacation caused Jack to get away, but because it opened up the police to unnecessary criticism - almost as bad during a crisis).
It reminds me of something I read in David Simon's "Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets" which I found very prosaic:
"And how does a Detective know he has the right man? Nervousness, fear, confusion, hostility, a story that changes or contradicts itself - all are signs that the man in an interrogation room is lying, particularly in the eyes of someone as naturally suspicious as a detective. Unfortunately, these are also signs of a human being in a state of high stress, which is pretty much where people find themselves after being accused of a capital crime. Terry McLarney [one of the detectives featured in the book] once mused that the best way to unsettle a suspect would be to post in all three interrogation rooms a written list of those behavior patterns that indicate deception:
Uncooperative.
Too cooperative.
Talks too much.
Talks too little.
Gets his story perfectly straight.
F's his story up.
Blinks too much, avoids eye contact.
Doesn't blink. Stares."
But, getting back to the subject of Anderson for a moment, I think that the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence points that Anderson was sometimes fast and loose with the "truth" when it suited him, and as a result, we need to take his claims with a grain of salt.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 01:13 am | | Anderson was the Cornwell of the day.
Dan 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 02:39 am | | TO ALL,
I attempted to examine the issue from a logical standpoint.
Questions may answer everything.
THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER THING.
Debate all you want. No one will answer and satisfy everyone.
PRO-ANDERSON VERSUS ANTI-ANDERSON
There is no distinct answer that shall prove anything.
I try to examine questions and examine all possible answers.
Solving the case (Judith) may be an impossibility after 114 years, but i will keep trying. I have nothing else to do.
Logic should lead the way in my opinion.
Why would Robert Donston Stephenson commit these murders?
Why would Montague John Druitt commit these murders?
Why would Lewis Carroll commit these murders?
THAT'S RIGHT, LEWIS CARROLL.
Even the learned historians and researchers such as Donald Rumbelow ( who I have had the pleasure of meeting) have stated that when he (DR) goes to HEAVEN, god will reveal the answer to the riddle, to all who cares. Everyone will look around and say "WHO".
So please do not dissmiss anyone,
(Dr. John Hewitt, John William Smith Sanders, Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, and Frank Miles), excluded.
I find it comical that most people state that the Lewis Carroll theory is such rubbish because of Richard Wallace's 'PROVED ANAGRAMS", yet there is no proof against any suspect.
Of course "JACK THE RIPPER" WAS NOT LEWIS CARROLL, because Richard Wallace's theory is faulty.
THIS PROVES LEWIS CARROLL WAS NOT "JACK THE RIPPER".
COMICAL.
Questions and answers. Then more questions and more answers. Then more and hopefully more. And then more.
MAYBE
STAN |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 03:59 am | | Unless one can prove that Anderson lied,there was a witness,there was a suspect,there was an identification.What utter rot.Anderson could have been wrong for any number of reasons,as has been noted in posts above.Lying,which is my belief,is only one.
Whether for legal or historical reasons,one would hope that truth is the first consideration when making statements on important issues,and that such truth is backed by irrefutable evidence.
Where is the material evidence that an identification took place.You can search from now to kingdom come,and you will not find it.There is no evidence that anyone,at any time,at any place,identified a person as Jack the Ripper.
It isn't a case of someone proving Anderson a liar that will determine what happened,but of someone proving that Anderson told the truth. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 05:24 am | | Re my earlier query about records of policemen staying in the Seaside Home, I see that there is a certain amount of information on the message boards about this already.
Ron Taylor, 8 January 2000 looked at the 1891 census for the Seaside Home, and came up with this:
Marg M Griffin Head 33 Lives by own means Born Hants, Portsea.
Fanny March, Matron Widow 57 Born Sssx Biddlecombe
James H ? Vistor Scholar 10 Born SSX, Brighton
James H ? Visitor Scholar Born Leics
Lahitia (?) Roper Servant 41 Ryde IoW
Eliza Inman Serv London, Bow
James Hay M 42 Police Inspector, Kent
Henry Hahl(?) M 47 PC Mdx Southall
Fredk Child s 28 PC Bucks, Beaconsfield
Fanny March Visitor Scholar 10 born SSX , Brighton
Paul Begg, 17 February 1999, wrote:
There are two books of interest. The Making of the Convalescent Police Seaside Home, Hove, Sussex by Miss M.P. Griffin and A Beloved Lady, being the life of Miss Gurney. There is quite a lot of extant material, including the "Minute Book" (held, I think, by the Public Record Office) and various annual reports, including the first report, which records: "From its opening, until March 1st, 1891, the Home has received 102 visitors - 1 ex-superintendent, 9 inspectors, 11 sergeants, and 74 constables, 5 ex-police officers, and 2 other visitors admitted by special request.
I'm not sure how these figures are meant to add up, as they seem to leave about 50 unaccounted for. As the full name was apparently the "Police Seaside Home and Southern Police Orphanage", and half of those present in the census are children, perhaps the other 50 are visiting police orphans.
If the number of police officers resident in the census is typical, these figures imply an average stay of about 3 weeks.
As far as records go, the Public Record Office's online catalogue turns up some material, but the covering dates don't go earlier than 1919. The National Register of Archives and "Access to archives" websites don't show anything further.
Perhaps those familiar with police sources can say whether the service records of individual officers would show a visit to the Seaside Home, or even a suggestive absence from work following an illness or injury? |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 09:20 am | | Rich:
I feel it's unlikely that the Anderson witness was Schwartz, for the following reason: if, as Anderson stated, the suspect was Jewish, I think it unlikely that they would have used the 'Lipski' slur.
This of course assumes that the police statement's version of the events is correct, and not the alternative version as reported in the newspaper (forget which newspaper right now).
It also assumes that the epithet 'Lipski' would not have been used by one Jew against another, of course.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 10:32 am | | Hi Timsta,
I really don't know how to evaluate the "Lipski" insult. I would not rule out the possibility of any ethnic group using an ethnic slur against a fellow.
It is not uncommon for blacks to use the "n" word in disparaging one another, for example. So, I don't know that Jew would not use the "Lipski" epithet against a fellow Jew.
But I do understand your view that you think it unlikely. I just don't know.
I do not know who the witness was - since neither Anderson or Swanson identifies the individual. My view that it was Schwartz is nothing more than an educated guess. There are others who think the witness was Lawande.
Regards,
Rich |
|
|
|
|
