|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 25 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: Police Officials:
Dr Robert Anderson:
Archive through 25 January 2003
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 10:52 am |        | Hi, Rich:
To jump to Paul Begg's defense, rather than Paul being egotistical, although heaven knows any of us could be held to be so for holding a position, Paul is, I should say, a careful weigher of evidence. He has told me that he believes the writings of Sir Robert Anderson provide an important pointer for research, rather than that he believes Anderson's point of view is the only position to hold. Thus, Paul believes that we should not dismiss Anderson too lightly. As he himself has stated on these boards, Anderson, holding the position that he did in the Metropolitan Police, could have had information that we don't know about. This is of course why we continue to debate the case, because the police did have certain information that we as researchers don't know. We might dismiss Anderson but what of Swanson, the man who initialed all the reports in the case as well as who annotated Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs? The annotations Swanson made in Anderson's book appear to be an acknowledgment that Aaron Kosminski was a serious suspect even if we cannot all accept Anderson's contention that the killer was a lower class Jew, who in Swanson's notation, was stated to be Kosminski. That is, I don't personally accept that Swanson was saying the exact same thing that Anderson was--he could have been merely making an annotation that Sir Robert was talking about Aaron Kosminski and that such a witness identification took place, but not necessarily endorsing Anderson's contention that the killer was Kosminski.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:04 am | | "Where is the material evidence that an identification took place.You can search from
now to kingdom come,and you will not find it."
Harry,
Such evidence exists in the form of the writings and marginalia of several senior police officials.
Let me be clear: I don't believe the Ripper was successfully I.D.'ed. I don't think Kosminski was the murderer. Therefore, if someone wants to assert that Anderson/Swanson were correct in their thinking, I'd say : prove it.
However, and it's a big however - I also think that if you want to say that Anderson/Swanson were
out and out liars, you should be prepared to offer some serious evidence as to why this is so. I don't slander the dead, especially the police, so casually.
From the A-Z:
"Anderson may have been quite wrong. But persistent attempts to disprove his statements by denigrating his character are almost on a par with the outdated game of abusing and dismissing the police as a whole (and Warren in particular) in order to allow irresponsible theoring from some other source."
Sir Robert |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:06 am | | Hi Stewart,
I have some reservations about why Schwartz could NOT have been the Anderson witness and why Lawende HAD to be said witness.
1.) Lawende himself stated several times he doubted he could I.D. the man he saw.
2.) As you pointed out with Stride's murder another person could have come upon Eddowes. According to the Dr. Blackwell, time of death for Stride was between 12:52 a.m. to 12:56 a.m. This allows only a 7 to 11 minute window. Eddowes was spotted by Lawende between 1:30 to 1:35 a.m. and her body was found at 1:45 a.m.(Plus, we don't know if she was propositioning the man seen with her, or sending him on his way.) Giving a 7 to 9 minute window for the killer to do the deed. So if another person could have come upon Stride then the same could be said of Eddowes.
3.) Lawende wasn't even fully sure that Eddowes was the woman he saw, mostly due to the condition her body was in, plus the fact that he never saw her face. He was only partially certain about her clothing, and even in his description of them all he could say was that they were dark. Schwartz on the other hand was positive that it was Stride he saw. So how is this more conducive of the witness being Lawende over Schwartz?
4.) You state as one of the reasons against Schwartz being the witness is the fact that he saw two people. However, wouldn't this explain why the 'witness' would be so hesitant over the identification of the 'suspect', since there were two people there and either one of them could have been the killer. It's conjecture sure, but it's much better than Anderson's 'Well Jews protect Jews' theory.
I agree with most of your critique's of Anderson and the 'Indentification'. But you say that you can't count out the possibilty that Anderson's 'Indentification' story is a bit in error, yet at the same time you count out the possibility that Schwartz was the 'Witness', but as you said there's no evidence for or against either ideas.
On a bit of a lighter note, one question I do have for you is that you state that the best thing for the case is that all the evidence about everyone and everything dealing with the case should be presented. I was wondering if it might be possible for such daunting researchers as yourself, Mssrs. Begg, Sugden, Skinner, and Fido work together on a book on the Police Officials working the Case? This way you can have a bit of a Critique/Enlightenment about the Officials Origins and possible motivations of why they did certain things the way they did. As you say it would be enlightening, much like debating the factors here on the boards would be.
We really don't have many guides on the Police Officials themselves, and I think it would be an excellent compendium to go along with any Library on the case.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:08 am | | Hi Chris,
I agree with every word of your post. I hope to clarify I did not intend to suggest that Paul Begg is egotistical.
What I meant to convey is that based on my readings, Anderson was very egotistical and prone to exaggeration and hyperbole - and here is where I depart from Mr. Begg somewhat in my assessment of Anderson's credibility.
I agree with you that Anderson's view should be carefully considered - despite any flaws in the man that might be apparent to some of us.
I think it is clear that Anderson believed there was an identification of the killer. Yet, I also understand that this could have been a distortion and exaggeration. But as you note, Swanson's remarks, regardless of their ambiguity, lead credence to Anderson's comments.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:15 am | | Hi, Chris:
I endorse your call for Stewart to write a book on the police officials who played a role in the case. Stewart's excellent book co-authored with Nick Connell on Inspector Reid, (The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper: Edmund Reid and the Police Perspective by Nicholas Connell and Stewart P Evans (Rupert Books, 2000), partially filled that need, but I think that there is a real need for a full-scale study of the police and the case. It would be nice to think that Paul Begg might be able to cooperate with Stewart on such a book, and if not Paul I should think Nick or Keith Skinner or both would make great co-authors.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:18 am | | "We really don't have many guides on the Police Officials themselves, and I think it would be an excellent compendium to go along with any Library on the case."
Hey Chris H.,
Let me heartily recommend to you Stewart's own "The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper: Edmund Reid and the Police Perspective" . Good stuff.
Sir Robert |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:18 am | | Hi, Rich:
Sorry, I read too hastily your message up above and now on looking more carefully at your post I see you were saying you feel that Anderson was egotistical not Paul Begg. My apologies.
All the best
Chris |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:19 am | | "I don't personally accept that Swanson was saying the exact same thing that Anderson was--he could have been merely making an annotation that Sir Robert was talking about Aaron Kosminski and that such a witness identification took place, but not necessarily endorsing Anderson's contention that the killer was Kosminski."
If this position is to be accepted, isn't it incumbent on us to know precisely why Swanson would not accept it? What is there about the working relationship between Anderson and Swanson that would engender it? Since we don't have anything specific between the two to go on in this regard, I think it would be difficult not to accept what Swanson wrote at face value.
David |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:28 am | | | To clarify, this is what I see the situation as having been: Swanson was making annotations in the book for himself. The annotations were not meant to be for public distribution. In making the note that Aaron Kosminski was that suspect all he might have been doing was noting for himself that the incident that his former boss Sir Robert Anderson was referring to involved Aaron Kosminski. The annotation does not imply that Swanson thought Kosminski was the Ripper. We don't know what Swanson thought. What we know is that in his memoirs, Anderson did not name the suspect but just referred to a lower class Jew. All Swanson did was to clarify, for himself, that Kosminski was the man involved in the suspect identification. Swanson might have believed exactly the same thing that Anderson believed that the suspect was the killer but we can't assume that. Rather, again, I think it is quite conceivable that Swanson years later was only supplying the name for his own purposes not endorsing what his former superior said. |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:35 am | | I think it's difficult to accept anything here at face value.
We don't know if the person who killed Stride was Jack. We don't know if the person Lawende saw was Jack. We don't know if he even saw Eddowes. We don't know if any of the witnesses saw Jack, and from the wildly varying descriptions it's fairly certain that a good portion of the supposed witnesses were seeing different people completely and only later assuming them to be the Ripper.
If Anderson thought somebody somewhere had a good look at Jack, he could very well be mistaken. If he thought that someone recognized the killer but refused to testify because they were both Jews, it's more than likely he was mistaken as to the person's rationale for not identifying the person.
Heck, the odd thing is, it appears that Anderson bought Hutchinson's odd story hook, line and sinker. This guy claimed to have had a really good look at the figure, clothing and face of what would presumably (if his testimony and the time of death can be believed, which are both controversial) be the last person to see MJK alive. Wouldn't it make sense for Anderson to be dragging Hutchinson around to try to ID people? How do we know it wasn't him? And, judging from the absurd testimony he provided, it doesn't seem likely he could have IDed any real person.
The case for this supposed identification of Jack only works if you assume someone actually saw Jack, could identify him later, the police knew this one witness was right, the witness was shown the former Jack the Ripper at the Seaside Home and identified him unofficially but not officially, couldn't be forced to do so legally, etc. etc. etc.
It's a house of cards. You can put it up and declare it an architectural wonder, but the slightest weight of evidence crashes the whole thing down.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 11:53 am | | Well, if nothing else this debate has certainly attracted some interest, some valuable contributions and no small amount of thought.
I must say that evidence for an identification is not at all clear, although the one involving Sadler and, from the description, Lawende was reported in the Daily Telegraph.
Of course, the greatest point militating against the idea of such an identification as described by Anderson and in the 'Swanson Marginalia' (and the attendant witness and suspect as described) is the fact that no such thing is so much as even alluded to in the surviving Police and Home Office records which extend to 1894.
It was nice to see some input from Paul, via Chris, and, of course, what he says is relevant and I would agree with him. Indeed, the very fact of this debate endorses the importance that people attach to Anderson.
Having said that, I will post this before addressing points raised by Chris Hintzen. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 12:03 pm | | Nowhere in the marginilia does Swanson directly endorse Kosminski, but personally, I think the 'tone' suggests that he does. This is subjective, but so be it. There is, however, a vague but perhaps indirect reference to Kosminski being Swanson's suspect. This is in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1895, where it is mentioned that Swanson's theory [their words] centers around a man that is 'now dead.' Not much to go on, but we do know from the marginalia that Swanson believed Kosminski had died shortly after being sent to Colney Hatch---which would fit the Pall Mall Gazette statement and the timing quite nicely.
As for Mr. Schwartz. I say it is unlikely that he is the witness. Swanson in his official report already planted the seed of doubt about Schwartz seeing the murderer. He muses on the possibility of a second attack. It's hard to argue, then, that Swanson would later come to believe that Schwartz was the mythical super witness. Cheers, RJP |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 12:12 pm | | Hi All,
Thanks Chris G. for the post.
Also, Stewart, I really appreciate your contribution and think there is merit in your arguments.
Unquestionably, you evaluate the case in an even-handed and thoughtful approach which is appreciated by all of us interested in the case.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 12:29 pm | | " The annotations were not meant to be for public
distribution."
Which, IMHO, makes it all the more likely that Swanson was telling the truth as he saw it circa 1910.
Sir Robert |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 12:45 pm | | Chris [H],
You have stated your position with regard to the identity of the 'Anderson witness'. I will address the points numerically, as listed by you.
1. Yes, Lawende did state to the City Police that he did not think that he 'should know the man again' and he did not see the woman's face. (He identified her as Eddowes only by her clothing and this in itself is not a positive identification of a person). Lawende also gave sworn evidence at the inquest that 'I doubt whether I should know him again.'
2. You should not state a doctor's estimate of the time of a death down to a matter of minutes. It is notoriously unreliable, involving many variants, and cannot be that accurately made. Blackwell arrived at 1.10 a.m. and for him to estimate the time of death down to 20-30 minutes before his arrival cannot be that accurate. The massive blood loss would have resulted in a rapid cooling of the body. (And he was making his judgement by feeling her temperature). The definite time, however, was that of the finding of the body. The argument is academic anyway as there is a recognised time gap between Schwartz' sighting and the probable time of death. Also true in the case of Eddowes, I would not disagree. To accept that Schwartz saw the actual murderer is simply not possible given the facts.
3. Lawende's identification of the woman as Eddowes was unsatisfactory, as at 1. above, but your argument is not valid. For we are not evaluating one against the other on the basis of how good a witness either would have made. That we will never know. We are assessing which was the most likely to have been used later for an identification. And we know that Lawende definitely was. Therefore arguments to make Schwartz the witness the police would use rather than Lawende must ultimately fail on this fact alone. There is evidence that Lawende was used. There is no evidence whatsoever that Schwartz was ever used.
4. As you say yourself, this is conjecture and I don't want to engage in arguments on pure conjecture.
I am pleased to see that we are in agreement on other points. As regards what I do or don't count out, I have addressed different scenarios with appropriate opinions. But, frankly, there is so little hard evidence that a lot of the possibilities simply have to be left open. It is more a question of likelihood and common sense as to which are the most realistic. I rate Schwartz well below Lawende in the 'witness used probability stakes' for the reasons given above.
You have very kind words for us as researchers and a nice idea that we could all work together. But we all have other commitments. I believe that Paul, Phil and Keith all have other books to work on. I too have just started my next book and am heavily committed on that. Such a book as you describe may well be of great interest to many here but, unfortunately, publishers are in the business to make money out of their commissions and they would not find such a project appealing. And us authors have to scrape some money together, somehow, as well.
However, it's amazing what you can find on this excellent site as well as in books already published.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 01:02 pm | | 1. "...it appears that Anderson bought Hutchinson's odd story hook, line and sinker."
This is quite an amazing statement, considering that Anderson's witness was Jewish and Hutchinson wasn't.
2. If Swanson disbelieved what Anderson had written, wouldn't he poo-poo it in the marginalia? But he does not. So he likely did not, or at least himself had no information with which to dispute it.
David |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 01:21 pm | | Hey David,
If I am not mistaken, it was Abberline who interrogated Hutchinson and was quite impressed with his veracity. I don't think there is any indication that Anderson actually spoke to him; he was getting his info from Abberline. So to the extent that Anderson "bought" the story, it was thanks to Abberline.
And while we are on the subject of Anderson, let me respond here to a private email I got asking why I was "posing" as Anderson with my screen name. Well, the simple truth is that Robert Anderson is indeed my real name, and I've added the Sir as a joke. Sorry if it offends anyone. I would think if you looked at my profile you'd realize it wasn't intended to be taken at face value.
Sir Robert |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 23 January 2003 - 02:01 pm | | Chris H and all,
I'm working on an idea for just such a book about the Police figures and the Met and City Police in general. I've talked it over with a few people (like Stewart, who has already offered a lot of generous advice) and I've started doing the research, but don't expect anything from me for a while and hopefully no one will beat me to it! And if none of the major publishers want it, I'm sure I can get Spryder to put it on here.
The main reason I want to do it, besides that I think it will fill a hole in the literature, was based on what I did for my dissertation and Paul's latest book.
The hardest part so far has been limiting the scope of the it, and figuring out what kind of research I need - not being one of the "big names", there is a lot of data that isn't easily available to me. But that's where being a graduate student helps, and being so close to the Library of Congress helps too. 
B |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 02:53 am | | Sir Robert,
You will note that I expressly mentioned a confrontation that identified a person as Jack The Ripper.I am aware there were other identity parades.I also mentioned there were other opinions as to why Anderson might be wrong.It is my opinion that Anderson lied on the subject put forward.It in no way implies that I believe him to be a liar on other occassions,though posters have shown this to have occured.
I have not commented on any other officer of that time as having lied.I believe most people tell the truth most of the time,but there is nothing I have read that will convince me that an Identification of the kind mentioned ,ever took place.Hence my opinion that Anderson lied,and untill one comes along with persuasive evidence that a Jew was identified as the Ripper,it will remain.
I find nothing wrong with that position.
I do not have to prove the statement of Anderson as lies.The man himself,over the many years he claimed to have knowledge of the Ripper's identity,had the oportunity to enlighten people of that fact.He never did.He claimed to know details.He did not divulge those details.
He was a public servant beholden to the general public and HIS superiors.He held both in contempt,if ,having information,he withheld it.
A honest man?. I hardly think so. |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 09:20 am | | Focus on the quote 'the only man who ever had a good view of the murderer '.
This is the key and tells us where Anderson is coming from. Unless information was withheld - or has been lost from many places - about an unknown witness, we _know_ (and Anderson must have known) that _no-one_ unequivocally saw JtR. So at best Anderson is making a flawed assumption (i.e. that one of the witness sightings was actually the murderer when it might not have been), unless someone can prove there is another witness.
This is not the same as deliberately lying, he's just overlooking the holes in the case he's made in his mind - same as many of us.
Pete |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 09:48 am | | Hi All,
The following is entirely speculation on my part:
A Jewish witness sees a man with a woman close to the scene of a murder shortly before it happens.
This witness is fairly sure he didn't have a good enough look at the man to recognise him again, and didn't even see the crime itself. But he is nevertheless asked to try his best on more than one occasion, with more than one suspect.
One of these suspects happens to be a man who fits a particular description, is picked up in the right area, displays eccentric behaviour, can provide no alibi for the murder nights and gives a very poor account of himself generally.
When the witness is asked to look at this particular suspect, the last thing he expects to find himself saying is, "Yes, this is definitely the man I saw with the woman that night". The best he, or the police, can realistically be hoping for is, "He could be the same man - there is nothing that seriously conflicts with my impressions at the time".
But, on coming face to face with the suspect, a fellow Jew, the witness is clearly taken aback and there is recognition in his eyes, followed by confusion and finally fear. He doesn't know if this is indeed the man he saw, far less that he went on to kill the woman he saw. But he does recognise him - he is even able to confirm his identity.
The witness has no idea what other evidence the police already have, but he is furiously guessing at this point. What does he do? What can he do? It must be obvious from his reaction that something’s up. So he admits to knowing the suspect, and goes as far as 'identifying' him - but not as the man he saw that night, and certainly not as the ripper. After all, how could he?
So the witness says in effect, "I can confirm the suspect's identity. However, I will not swear that this man, a fellow Jew, is the same man I saw with the woman that night."
Anderson interprets this statement to mean that the witness positively identified the suspect, but being a fellow Jew was not willing to swear that he saw him that night. In other words, in Anderson’s mind his suspect was indeed there, and no doubt went on to kill the woman he was standing with, but the witness who was able to identify him was insisting on turning a blind eye.
Whether this scenario is plausible or not, Anderson's suspect could still have been the ripper. Without knowing what other information he had, or how he interpreted it and used it to support such a conclusion, we can only think we know whether he was entitled to that conclusion or not.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 10:05 am | | Hi Caz
Yes, he could still have been JtR. But I doubt that he could have been proved to be, because none of the witnesses we know about actually saw a murder. So Anderson didn't 'know' in the sense that he had irrefutable proof - he at best had reason to believe he knew.
Unless, as I suggested, there really was another witness about whom we know nothing - a Jewish policeman, perhaps?
Regards
Pete |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 10:08 am | | | I mean nothing personal here, just an observation, feel free to disagree or respond. There are many reasonable doubts, objections, and inconsistancies to the Kosminski theory. A great many. One theorist above calls these objections 'black holes' or paradoxes. But the pro-Anderson theorists operate from a presumptive belief that Anderson is on the up and up. So what are they left with? It seems to me they are left in a continual scramble to reconcile the objections rather than to concede that there might have been something untoward about Sir Robert's statements. A few examples. Reasonable objection: Kosminski was a harmless babbling lunatic that wandered the gutter for nearly two years after the Kelly murder. Reconciliation: Kosminski was Kaminsky, Kaminsky was Cohen. Objection: no other police officer, either Senior of junior [Dew, Smith, Macnaghten, Littlechild, etc] believed in the Anderson/Swanson theory. Reconciliation: the Seaside Home identification was a covert operation. Objection: No witness could possibly identify with absolute certainty a suspect seen in a fleeting moment in a dark alley 1 1/2 years in the past. Reconciliation: the witness knew the suspect personally; there was some witness we don't know about. And so on. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 10:38 am | | Hi RJ,
My speculation that the witness may have known the suspect personally was not due to any 'pro-Anderson' bias, or an attempt to reconcile the objection to which you refer.
I don't for one minute think that Lawende, for example, would have been able to identify with absolute certainty the man he saw that night, if and when he came face to face with him at a future date and was asked the question. And without further evidence, that man must be presumed not to be the last man to see Eddowes alive, and therefore not her killer.
But if I don't at least try to make some sense of this alleged unhesitating identification of the suspect, I am in effect allowing for Anderson to be inventing it - and I would prefer to exhaust all other avenues first.
What did you think, objectively, of my scenario, in which there was a witness, a suspect and an identification (of sorts), but in which the witness did not know, or even think he knew, whether the man he 'identified' could have been guilty or not?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 11:00 am | | Hey R.J.,
No question in my mind that folks who believe Anderson was correct have a lot of hoops to jump through. However, I continue to assert that it is equally difficult to prove that Anderson and/or Swanson were out and out liars.
The most reasonable explanation is found in the Littlechild letter: "(Anderson) only thought he knew".
Sir Robert |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 11:13 am | | R.J.
As regards the convoluted arguments surrounding the Cohen-based theorising, surely the following two statements totally dismiss the whole idea:-
(1) "After a stranger has gone over it [the Whitechapel district] he takes a much more lenient view of our failure to find Jack the Ripper, as they call him, than they did before." - Dr. Robert Anderson, quoted in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 4, 1889, [after an interview with R. Harding Davis in August 1889]
(2) "I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac." - Sir Robert Anderson, The Lighter Side of My Official Life, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1910, page 137.
In the case of (1) above this statement should, on its own, totally invalidate the whole Cohen argument for any reasonable person. But the 'Cohenites' will then devise their 'buts' and 'what ifs' and produce even more involved explanations such as it wasn't until later that Anderson actually plumped for this theory having obtained some further information.
However, combining (2) with (1), they really do have a problem. For (2) is a statement published in 1910 and shows that Anderson only assumed that McKenzie was a Ripper victim and he even qualifies it by saying that he had reason to assume this as the Chief Commissioner (Monro) had investigated it and reached the conclusion that it was not a Ripper killing. If Anderson knew the identity of the killer, and that killer had been incarcerated in December 1888, then he would not assume that McKenzie was not a Ripper victim, he would know she was not.
But I agree, the 'Polish Jew' theorists are certainly adept at coming up with clever answers. That's because they have to do it so much. Their whole edifice is built on speculating, postulating, suggesting and arguing. Personally I don't think that the killer was a 23 year-old, insane, poor Polish Jew who probably did not speak very good English.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Monty
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 12:04 pm | | 'Buts' and 'ifs'
In this field ?...surely not Mr Evans.
Monty
 |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 12:56 pm | | I am reluctant to insist there was no 'seaside home' identification.
If there was the 'recognition scenario' suggested by Caz where the witness recognised the suspect, not as the person he witnesses near the crime but someone he knew from another context - e.g. a relative, and hence reacted strangely and after identifying the subject then recanted - i.e. - "that's my uncle fred - oh, no, no, thats not the man I saw" it does perhaps explain Anderson's reaction.
This all fits with the 'Anderson only thought he knew' line. i.e Anderson was not an idiot, he had grounding for his views (hence the searches etc.)and then what he would have regarded as 'moral evidence', but unfortunatly he did not really have the evidence that we could now accept to back up his opinion. Not lying, just over-confident in his belief due to certain views which he obviously held and later publicly declared regarding evidence.
Incidentally, if this is the scenario it adds to ruling out Cohen as the subject of the identification based on the two statements referred to above. After Anderson had seen his witness frightened and uneasy but refusing to confirm the identity of the man I would think he would have been as convinced as he was in the 'eye-image' situation, so he would have 'known' at those times that JtR was out of the way.
But note the 'ifs' !
Pete |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 01:48 pm | | Hi Pete,
And what if the suspect had looked even more frightened and uneasy than the witness, when he saw recognition in the man's eyes?
Might be enough to convince an onlooker that the suspect really had been sussed, when the witness may simply have recognised a local scallywag, who would then be understandably terrified of where this recognition might lead him.
It still doesn't make the suspect guilty of actually being the ripper, without further evidence of a much stronger kind. But it wouldn't make Anderson a liar either.
Love,
Caz |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 03:26 pm | | Dear Friends,
We are here engaged in Ripperlogical discussion of the best kind. It is a pleasure to find others tossing the golden ball, and I must confess I experience a sense of love when beholding them.
That said, let me please respectfully remind all present that Dr. Anderson used quite incontrovertible language when attesting to the fact that a witness identified the murderer as the murderer. Anderson knew what the man was saying, and knew why what the man was saying was credible, otherwise he wouldn't say that "the identity of the murderer was a definitely ascertained fact." Since we have NO reason to suspect Anderson or Swanson of being liars, then that's it, folks, Anderson knew what he knew.
David |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 03:43 pm | | You can remind us of your opinion, but that doesn't mean your assumptions are right. In fact they seem to contradict several points made by Stewart and others above.
Your view is that you are right because Anderson was right and he couldn't possibly be mistaken because you won't accept that you can't be mistaken. Sorry, but that doesn't solve the case.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 04:01 pm | | David,
A)"Since we have NO reason to suspect Anderson or Swanson of being liars,"
I'd tone that down a tad - we have no EVIDENCE to show that the two were liars.
B)"then that's it, folks, Anderson knew what he knew."
I don't think A leads to B. There's plenty of reason to think Anderson was mistaken. In fact, the Pall Mall Gazette quote of November 4, 1889 that Stewart cites makes me believe that Anderson became more convinced he had indeed "caught" the Ripper as time went on, which makes me place even less faith in the I.D. having been correct.
Sir Robert |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 04:19 pm | | Stewart--Many thanks for those examples. I have to admit that I can't reconcile the Cohen theory with Anderson's statements, either. There's too many loose ends, the mental gymnastics are too strenuous for me. Here's another statement from Anderson which you'll instantly recognize. [I should acknowledge that I'm pilfering it from Melvin Harris' The True Face of Jack the Ripper]. Anderson in the Daily Chronicle, September 1, 1908, talks about "clues destroyed" during the Whitechapel Murder investigation: the graffiti, a clay pipe. "Clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin." Anderson goes on to make an odd remark for someone 'in the know': "I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for the non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes..."
At the very least, I would think, this demonstrates that the Polish Jew was not a contemporary suspect. Whatever made Anderson eventually believe in Kosminski's guilt, it happened well after-the-fact. As we all know, the Seaside Home wasn't built until 1890, after Cohen was already dead.
Though Harris doesn't take the time to expand on this point, we know that Matthews was actually the Home Secretary during the Ripper crimes. Sir William Harcourt was Home Secretary 1880-1885, so Anderson was clearly confused. I can only imagine that sometime after the awful glut of 1905, Anderson's brain gave way altogether.
PS. Caz, Peter --Don't we have to give David Radka his due? Anderson said that the witness "unhesitatingly identified" the suspect. I don't see how this can be confused with "unhesitatiny recognized" the suspect. Two questions. Under what scenerio would "Uncle Fred's" recognition serve the same purpose as an identification of the murderer? I guess I don't understand. #2. Under what circumstance would Uncle Fred not know the suspect ['his nephew' in this scenerio] was a fellow Jew?
Finally, to Sir Robert--No, I agree. I think Littlechild has the correct attitude. I'm not sure how David or the other Anderson theorists will resolve the objection that Anderson only thought he knew what he knew.
Thanks to everyone for the conversation. RP |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 04:27 pm | | RJ quotes Anderson: "Anderson in the Daily Chronicle, September 1, 1908, talks about "clues destroyed" during the Whitechapel Murder investigation: the graffiti, a clay pipe. "'Clues that might very easily have secured for us proof of the identity of the assassin.'"
Why does Anderson even bring up the pipe? What kind of clue could a clay pipe have provided? Mass produced, handed out for free, they're not much more individualized than a cigarette.
Just wondering,
Dave |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 05:06 pm | | RJ,
"Sir William Harcourt was Home Secretary 1880-1885, so Anderson was clearly confused. I can only imagine that sometime after the awful glut of 1905, Anderson's brain gave way altogether.
"
Excellent point on this - Sir William Harcourt WAS the man, though, that removed Anderson from his post as the Home Office advisor for political crime and stuck him with only running his agent Beach, and the Loss of Life at Sea Commission. I'm sure Anderson told Harcourt that he was unwilling to assume responsbility for a lot of things in his day, and got Harcourt and Matthews confused.
Stewart, I received the book today. Thank you very much!
B |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 05:06 pm | | David--I'm not sure what significance Anderson attached to the pipe, but it is reference to the Alice McKenzie post mortem:
Dr. Phillip's report:
"Discovery of & subst. loss of a short clay pipe.
While searching the clothing one of the attendants found a short pipe, well used, which he thoughtlessly threw onto the ground & broke it."
[Evans & Skinner, p 457.]
Thus, this "clue" to the murderer's identity was destroyed in July, 1889. It makes David Cohen a rather tough sell.
Ps. Brian--thanks. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 09:40 pm | | "I'm not sure how David or the other Anderson theorists will resolve the objection that Anderson only thought he knew what he knew."
The idea that Anderson only thought he knew does not come from Anderson or Swanson. It comes from Littlechild. As far as we have writings from Bob 'n Don, Anderson knew and knew that he knew.
Littlechild would have to be appraised to determine if he were trustworthy, and then on what information he was basing his proposition that Anderson only thought he knew. If it can be shown that Littlechild was not privy to the details of the identification, which is very likely in my opinion, then we have a decisive objection to the proposition that Littlechild knew what he was talking about when he said Anderson only thought he knew.
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 03:50 am | | R.J.,
Yes, the Daily Chronicle piece is well known and we discussed it at length here before. It was headed 'CRIME DETECTION - How the Police are Hindered in Their Investigations. SIR R. ANDERSON'S VIEWS.' It seems to have been instigated by the Luard case that was in the news at that time.
It is amazing, given all the evidence shown in this thread, that anyone can still have any faith in Anderson's word on the Ripper case. But there is nothing like a stubborn 'Andersonite' for digging his heels in, slipping on the blinkers and failing to internalise contra-information.
It is also amazing that the new information that has gradually been found on Anderson all tends to support the idea of the gradual development of a theory that became hard fact in his mind over the years.
I earlier pointed out (22 January - 06:53 pm) Anderson's clear statement on page 137 of his 1910 book that the Poplar case was not a murder but "was a death from natural causes". This is simply, incorrect, not true, false information, call it what you will, and Anderson knew that it wasn't true. He spent much time on it in 1888/9, trying to write it off as a death from natural causes and to not investigate it as a murder. (See pages 422-439 of The Ultimate...). He failed, and it was an unsolved murder - and he knew it was. But in 1910 in writing about it he categorically states that it was not.
Rich disagreed with me that this did not show that Anderson was a liar, describing it, rather, as "he said things that were untrue." That is a difficult one to work out. You can knowingly say things that are untrue, but you are not a liar? Rich also referred, in the same post, to the example of Anderson's lies to the man he suspected of murder by saying, "I see that differently then [sic] making false claims in a book." Well, if the statement in Anderson's book about the Poplar murder isn't a false claim then I don't know what is!
Let's take this a stage further. Suppose a modern writer is writing a piece on the East End murders and is using Anderson as his basis for his theorising. On the strength of what Anderson says in this book he would discard the Poplar case as a murder. He would, in fact, be working on false information given by Anderson. Now we can easily prove that the Poplar case was resolved as a murder that remained undetected on the Scotland Yard files. But if the same writer wrote that Anderson knew the identity of the Ripper, it would be difficult to prove, categorically, that he was wrong and that Anderson did not know. We know this as there are still all these debates going on.
But surely this selectivity and blind faith in the word of a man who, historically, there are many reasons to distrust, is wrong? But what is even more misleading is the fact that several writers who have espoused the 'Anderson theory' in the past do not mention all these caveats that exist when dealing with what Anderson wrote. You never read in their works of the R. Harding Davis piece, the Daily Chronicle piece and the misleading piece in Anderson's own book about the Poplar case. And some of the other things mentioned here. As a source Anderson should carry the warning 'treat with caution'. Instead we are told that he simply could not lie and that he was in a position to know.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 07:35 am | | Well,didn't Anderson say the man unhesitatingly identified the suspect as the murderer.
Unless the witness was one we do not know about, or unless a witness saw more than is now recorded, that cannot be exactly true - the most it can mean is that the witness identified the suspect as the man he saw who might have been the murderer.
I am unwilling to believe this is all fantasy, but unless we have more information, I don't think we can do anything but conclude that to some degree Anderson convinced himself he knew the identity of the murderer based on evidence that appears to be inadequate. And since Anderson himself espouses strange ideas on what he considers evidence, albeit in another context, surely that increases the likelihood that he was able to so convince himself despite not having a complete case. He clearly did so over the eye-image case.
I am not accusing Anderson of any deliberate dishonesty, but he was clearly a man who had strong views on certain subjects and it seems reasonable to conclude that those strong views could cause him to make what, on the available evidence, seems to be an overstated position on two counts - that the witness definitely saw the murderer and hence that the man the witness identified therefore must have been the murderer.
Discussing possible ways that the odd outcome of the identification could have come about does not change the above situation.
Pete |
Author: Caroline Morris
Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 01:20 pm | | Hi RJ,
Imagine the scenario in which the witness is brought in front of the suspect, 'unhestitatingly' recognises him as the same man he saw with the woman that night, but then says he won't swear to him being the man he saw because he is a fellow Jew.
Now, if the witness got such a good look at the man the first time around that he 'unhesitatingly' recognised him again at a much later date, he would have known from the start that he was a fellow Jew, wouldn't he?
So your second question answers itself: under no circumstances would 'Fred' not have known, when he first saw the man with the woman, that he was a fellow Jew (and obviously his own nephew, or personal acquaintance if he was), if he 'unhestitatingly' recognised him as being the same man at the later identification.
But, if the witness had only the vaguest recollection of the man he saw, due to the darkness or not paying much attention, he could not possibly have 'unhestitatingly identified' Anderson's suspect as the same man, could he?
It's possible, however, that he 'unhesitatingly identified' the suspect as someone known to him personally (eg "Yes I can identify this man, he is my nephew", or, "That's that lowlife Kosminski!"), but this would not necessarily mean that the suspect and the man he saw with the woman that night were one and the same person - although it's possible.
Now, Anderson may have had other reasons to believe the suspect was the same man the witness saw near the murder scene; he may have had a reason to believe this man was also the ripper. That would at least explain his reasoning that the witness had indeed been the only known person to have seen the murderer. But we just don't know.
Equally, Anderson could have put two and two together and made five, ie the witness is able to 'identify' the man in front of him by name, and the reactions of both men convince Anderson that his suspect knows he has been recognised as the murderer by the witness.
I still have the utmost trouble believing the whole witness/suspect/identification thing was pure fantasy.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
