Archive through 27 January 2003

** 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 27 January 2003

Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: Police Officials: Dr Robert Anderson: Archive through 27 January 2003

Author: David Radka Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 01:36 pm
"...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." Stewart, They are only caveats in your opinion. A caveat is a relative thing. A caveat to you may not be a caveat to the next person. I see NO significant caveat in dealing with what Anderson wrote concerning the identification. Some of what I have written in the past wasn't exactly a prize package, but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily a bad fellow and can't be trusted. Have a look at what Mr. Norder has said about me, and then make a comparison to what you have said about Anderson above. Do you notice a similarity? Mr. Norder has written that I have a "past history" on these message boards which in his opinion is not very good, and that THEREFORE he does not have any obligation to take whatever I may further post here seriously, and that THEREFORE whatever I may write in criticism of what he writes is incorrect. The problem with this is that there is no THEREFORE relationship here. There is no LOGIC linking one side of his equation to the other. The whole thing, both sides, are merely his opinions. As a matter of fact, anybody can make this kind of negative "evaluation" about anybody. If in my opinion the fact that you have a mole on you chin THEREFORE means that you can't be trusted, I am at my leisure to go ahead and not trust you, thus "completing" the logical relationship of your mole to your "untrustworthiness." The same thing is true of you and Anderson. A logical argument could be made that you have an "axe to grind" or an "agenda" concerning the identification, because you wish for Francis Tumblety to have been the murderer. Since Anderson and Swanson wrote that the identified murderer was a Jew and we know that Tumblety wasn't, it could be maintained that you feel you need to cast enough aspersions on Anderson personally to leave open a margin of credibility for Tumblety. The more aspersions you cast in this regard that come up short of definitively ruining Anderson's character in such a plain, black-and-white way as to leave no doubt whatever that he can't be trusted in this matter, the more you may appear to having acted on your own agenda, and not on the facts. In other words, it's not a zero-sum-game that you are playing. You can question Anderson's character in a reasonable way for awhile and leave the matter as an open question, or you can go whole hog and try to ruin Anderson right to the end, to sweep him right out of the case for good. If you do the former you can can succeed partially, putting a question on Anderson while preserving your objectivity as a commenter, but if you do the latter you must succeed 100% or lose your objectivity. I honestly don't see a logical way to finish Anderson off credibility-wise. I can see how we may want to ask a number of questions about the whole extraordinary matter of the identification, including whether or not Anderson was right out of his mind, but I can't conclude on him. Since I can't, and he and Swanson both write unequivocally that the murderer was identified by a witness who had a good look at him, I must leave open the possibility that, at minimum, something happened to convince Anderson that the murderer had been identified. With the highest respect for your work on the case and you personally, and best wishes always, David
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 03:40 pm
David, I do not intend to get into specious argument with you and if you look at my posts I stick pretty much to the facts. If I make my own interpretation of something, I make that clear. However, you have donned the Andersonite blinkers and fail to see that Anderson's word has to be judged on more than simply looking at just his unbelievable claims about an identification. Your stance is predicatble as you obviously base all your suspect reasoning on Anderson and fall into the usual trap. I do not know you and therefore cannot judge you as a person. Many who write on these boards write out of character, much like the thousands of inoffensive, mild-mannered people who become aggressive and irate behind the wheel of a car. Therefore it is impossible, really, to know exactly what any of the posters are like unless you have actually met them. As to what others post here, well I judge their words on what they say, based on any knowledge I may have and the thinking, or otherwise, that has gone into their post. You can make whatever 'logical' arguments you like and suggest what you like about suspects. My stance is totally objective and, I think, I know a lot more about Anderson than you do. I have shared new material I have found on Anderson in the past, but I will do so no longer. If the attitude is that I am presenting material on Anderson to denigrate him and prop up my own ideas then I'd best keep my material to myself. Anyone can see that much that has been written on Anderson and his words in the past has been selective, tendentious and misleading. If you want to be 'led', fine that's up to you. Others appreciate seeing the fuller picture. And if you don't think that the material that has been shown to militate against Anderson's word above isn't a warning to the incautious, then you are not as intelligent as I have always thought you to be. Or is it funnel vision? I do not like the suggestions that you have made above as to my motives. In words that have been used on these boards in the past, you are 'postulating the thought processes of another'. If I require your advice I will ask for it, otherwise I would appreciate you keeping your opinions on my thinking to yourself. For they are only that, your opinions. To finish, it is not a question of 'finishing Anderson off credibility-wise', he did a pretty good job of that himself. The problem is, those with a vested interest in subscribing to his words and his theorising do so with an almost blind faith. I quite honestly don't care what you 'have' to 'leave open' with regard to Anderson, that's entirely up to you. But, take it from me, there is absolutely no way that 'Jack the Ripper' will be identified from what he said. To end, thank you for the closing kind words. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: David Radka Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 03:54 pm
Stewart, Please continue to provide new objective information concerning Anderson that comes up, with your objective analysis. We need you to help us decide on the open question of whether he can be trusted. Many thanks for your kind response. David
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 04:23 pm
Good Gawd, David. If Henry Smith bashes Anderson, one is entirely within their rights to point out that Smith was Anderson's 'political enemy' [as Martin Fido does]. If Littlechild pooh-poohs Anderson in a private letter, it's fair to argue that Littlechild was out of the loop. [Though I don't agree.] But what is Stewart doing above? He is quoting the words of the man himself: the big sausage. Sir Robert. If Anderson himself talks elsewhere about the non-detection of the Whitechapel murderer, than I'd say any reasonable, objective commentator would admit that we have grounds for a caveat. But we've been down this path before. The whole rock on which the Kosminski edifice is built is Anderson's reliability. If a historian comes along and gives an evaluation of Anderson that falls short of hero-worship, it ought not be implied that he has a hidden agenda. In fact, it seems to me that such an argument is dangerously close to ad hominem, a sure sign that no good counter-argument is close at hand. Respectfully submitted, RJP
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:15 pm
David, Thank you for that, as I say I have no wish to engage in dispute. I have recently found a very large and interesting article on Anderson in which he talks about the murders, and which dates from before the Macnaghten report of 1894. It also refers to an article actually written by Anderson himself which carries a title suggesting that it may have mention of murders in it. Research is being conducted to trace this article, and this is time consuming and is only done when time allows. When the research is complete I was intending to make the material known. However, this is of no great importance to me as I am not planning to include it in a book of any sort, hence the lack of urgency in tracing this article. My current work is not Ripper-related and I don't want to get side-tracked from my main project. Believe me when I say that if my research revealed material that supported Anderson's claims, rather than militated against them, I would still be happy to reveal it. That is the whole idea of objectivity and giving the full story. You endeavour to research and write without bias. R.J., Many thanks for that, it's always nice to know that I have some support for what I try to do. Best Wishes to both of you, Stewart
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:38 pm
Apropos the Anderson material I purchased some time ago, you can see that it dates from his early anti-Fenian days -
Author: Chris Hintzen Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:40 pm
Hi Stewart, It's no secret that you and I have had a debate or two in the past, however, I agree with R.J. and David here. You are one of the BEST researchers this case has. Without you and a few others we would be like Blind Men in a Wind Tunnel. I always see things like this, we can NEVER have too much information on this case. So every little nugget of information you dig up, is like finding another Fort Knox. Keep up the GOOD Work. Best Wishes, Chris H.
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:41 pm
Deleted - SPE
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:43 pm
...through to his later days with the Metropolitan Police Force...
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 06:46 pm
Chris, Many thanks for that, appreciated. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 25 January 2003 - 07:51 pm
Dear David, I guess you are on your own! Me...I always thought Sir Robert was a very - VERY - dangerous man to cross. He gives nothing away...except that FACT! I am interested on your take on Sir Robert...you will need RADiKALISM if you intend to make some headway on this track. So, the 'double event' becomes the Gordian Knot? Rosey :-)
Author: Harry Mann Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 03:51 am
Pehaps I am the only one that has gone as far as stating a belief that Anderson lied,that there never was an identification of the kind he describes,i.e.that a person was identified as Jack the Ripper. Except for Swanson's writing of a name in the margin of a book,and that is so ambiguous it can reasonably be discounted as alluding to the same identification,there is not a shread of evidence to support Anderson's words.And there should be if indeed it happened. No time,no place,no names.It is as if an event happened and all except one man,suffered a total and permanent lapse of memory.Or,to stretch it further,everyone involved either singularly or as a group,decided to suppress the happening for a reason unexplained. Do I believe a person of his position would lie.I have met many persons more senior than he, that would do and have done so. Do I denigrate him for suggesting he lied.Maybe,but then I remember the contempt he shows for the victims and their families and friends.No words of appology there.He knew the killer,but would not ease the sorrow and fear of the district by revealing that the killer was known and could do no more harm. He knew nothing,and is the more contemptible for suggesting he did. That is my opinion.
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 05:13 am
Another aspect of all this is the emphasis that has been put on the bad relations between Metropolitan and City Police Forces. This has been illustrated by the City objections to the removal of the Goulston Street wall writing. However, the surviving contemporary documents indicate that the two forces liaised and worked well together. The apparent antagonism of Major Henry Smith of the City Police to Robert Anderson of the Metropolitan Police has also been emphasised. This is shown by Smith's attack on Anderson's claim to know the identity of the Ripper in 1910. But this feeling was in 1910 and was prompted when Smith read Anderson's amazing claims in the Blackwood's article. Back in 1901 the two men were on very good terms with each other, as is shown by one of the letters in my collection from Smith to Anderson -
Author: Philip Rayner Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 07:51 am
I have no views either way on this but I do wonder what his motive for bending the truth would be. There is of course no doubt as to the fact that his comments are ambiguous. He must, however, have a reason for stretching the truth (If indeed he did.). I presume we are talking of the seaside home ID. That did strike me as odd. If I remember correctly the place didn't exist in 1888. Also that the witness refused to cooperate. I feel sure that once identified there would have been a way to arrest and convict without identification. Given that the crimes were so horrific, surely religious considerations would be swept aside. The other question is, if the witnees did not want the death of a fellow jew on his conscience, was he quite happy to let these poor women die without justice being done. I can see why Anderson's comments could be doubted but not what he gains from making the statements if they are lies.
Author: Chris Phillips Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 09:01 am
Just going back to those hints that others beside Anderson and Swanson did know of an identification - Macnaghten's statement that the Polish jew suspect resembled the man seen by a "City PC" near Mitre Square, and the more definite statement that a Polish suspect was identified by a police witness, made by journalist G. R. Sims in 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. ... 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." It's tempting to identify this police witness with Macnaghten's PC (especially as Sims was known to be in contact with Macnaghten). But Sims's policeman who saw a man leaving the scene of the crime definitely conflicts with another one in Macnaghten's memoirs: On this occasion it is probable that the police officer on duty in the vicinity saw the murderer with his victim* a few minutes before, but no satisfactory description was forthcoming.* [quoted by Martin Fido, 1989 edn, p. 155; my emphasis] The usual jumble of conflicting memories, but it sounds as though Macnaghten was muddling Lawende and his companions, who saw a couple near Mitre Square, with Metropolitan PC Smith, who saw a couple in Berner Street on the same night. Could it be that Sims was similarly muddling information about an identification by a police officer (at the Seaside Home??) with Stephen White's melodramatic story about seeing a man leaving the scene of a murder? Unfortunately, the fact that the evidence is hopelessly muddled seems to be the only thing that's clear!
Author: Arfa Kidney Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 11:34 am
Hello Stewart, Thanks for posting the image of the Smith to Anderson letter. The other side was interesting too! Regards, Mick
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 01:21 pm
The reason for Anderson to claim that the Ripper was known was his dislike for unsolved crimes to his name, press criticism and pride in his department. The start of his career as Assistant Commissioner coincided with the start of the 'Ripper' murders. Despite the fact that he went off on sick leave at the time of the Chapman murder, he was the head of the C.I.D. and was held responsible for solving these murders. As soon as he returned to England at the beginning of October 1888 he was given charge of the files and the case. The murders remained unsolved. Macnaghten's statement that Kosminski "in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square" appeared in the Aberconway version of his notes but not, possibly significantly, in the official version. This probably refers to the fact that this suspect fitted the description of the suspect circulated after the Mitre Square murder, rather than to any sort of identification. It is hard to believe that Macnaghten would have made no mention of an identification, had he known about it. The 'City P.C.' is most likely to be a confusion of the City witness, Lawende (who did see a suspect and supplies a description), with Pc 452 William Smith who was a witness in the Stride case. It is of further interest to note, in relation to the witness for the Polish Jew suspect, that Major Griffiths wrote in his 1898 book, Mysteries of Police and Crime:- "This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got a glimpse of him - the police-constable in Mitre Court" [sic]. This book was very popular at the time and in wide circulation and there can be little doubt that this was Sims' initial source for this story. Sims appears to have used several sources for his pieces. In his 1914 book, Days of My Years, pages 59-60, Macnaghten wrote:- "On this occasion [Mitre Square] it is probable that the police officer on duty in the vicinity saw the murderer with his victim a few minutes before, but no satisfactory description was forthcoming." The wording of this leaves little doubt that Macnaghten meant Lawende, and that the confusion arose from the fact that there was a police officer witness that night, who did furnish the description of a suspect, but it was Pc Smith as stated above. From the surviving official reports on the Mitre Square murder there can be no doubt that no City officer saw a suspect that night. It will be noted that Macnaghten comes up with an apparent contradiction in his book to his 1894 report, and that is that "no satisfactory description was forthcoming." The 'Stephen White story' is another matter however. It is undoubtedly apocryphal and did not appear until September 1919. (This has all been thrashed out on these boards in the past - more than once!) It therefore appeared too late for Sims to use in any of his pieces.
Author: Chris Phillips Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 06:41 pm
Stewart Thanks for pointing out the "Mitre Court" report by Griffiths. It certainly looks like the source of the similar statement by Sims. Forgive me if I'm going over old ground, but when you say the White story is apocryphal, do you mean you think it was a complete invention on the part of journalists after his death, and that he never told any such story? If on the other hand it was an embellished story that had been told by White, I'd still be tempted to think that Sims might have heard it by 1907, and perhaps wrongly connected with the "City PC" story, itself the product of confusion. Again, I suspect the "Seaside Home" problem has been done to death, and I have read a fair amount on it, but what I've never seen is a really plausible explanation of why the witness should have been sent all the way to Hove, "with difficulty", unless it was to be identified by a police witness who was at the Home.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 08:14 pm
Dear Chris, Now why would a man like Sir Robert set up this Seaside ID...unless it was for a Jolly? The man's credentials at the Castle included the REPRESSION OF A PEOPLE! What he was "up to" THEN... would make the hairs on the back of your neck STANDUP. The Irish Republican Brotherhood had their OWN file on this agent of the realm. His real name is Jack the Ripper. Rosey :-)
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Sunday, 26 January 2003 - 11:50 pm
Bringing in the heavier guns, lol.... I was doing some research on Inspector Robert Sagar, whom I think is an interesting character in the case that we don't know much about. He was the City Police representative to the nightly meetings of the Met detective heads working on the Ripper case. Anyhow, I was reading an old thread regarding David Cohen that mentioned Sagar, and found this post of Martin Fido's from 5/18/01 : "On the Seaside Home or asylum ID - SOMETHING must have transpired. Anderson was scrupulously honest to the point of being a bit of a bore in his self-examination over the rights and wrongs of misleading criminals with half-truths. (By 'scrupulously' I mean, of course, that he had the sort of scruples that don't seriously worry most people: not that he Could Never Tell a Lie. But I don't think there can be then slightest doubt that he was quite incapable of the sort of reckless, irresponsible mendacious boasting of which Stephen Knight accused him). Swanson was writing a private note as a personal comment or aide-memoire, and it's quite inconceivable that he would have been lying, either. I mean, lying to himself?! For no conceivable advantage?! Anderson can be shown to have a shaky memory of cases which preceded his joining the Met (at least, he mixes up Constance Kent and Penge murders once). Otherwise he has never been shown to have a shaky memory. Swanson's family recalled him as keeping all his marbles perfectly util his death. So why do they contradict each other? My suspicion is that there were two IDs and Swanson may not have attended the one in the asylum, which could account for his not being as sure as Anderson that the ID proved the case. (I.e. a witness could have made an instant and positive ID of a suspect in the asylum, observed by Anderson and not Swanson. And the same or another witness could have made a much less positive ID of another suspect in the Seaside Home, observed by Swanson, who thereafter thought this was what Anderson was describing. 'Could have...', 'could have...', 'could have...' - it's horribly thin, I know. But we are looking at a major puzzle in the historical record. And I don't put this forward as more than a 'suspicion'). Still, in the Blackwood's Magazine version of his memoirs, which he altered slightly in the Ripper passages, and the Ripper passages only, Anderson does say, like Swanson, that the witness's reason for refusing to swear to his identification was because the suspect was a fellow-Jew. Swanson's repetition of this is one reason for assuming that he didn't know of the variant readings in the earlier version. Anderson did not ever give the second reason Swanson remembers: that the witness didn't want to be responsible for the suspect's death. This again, suggests to me that there must have been an ID of another suspect, since Anderson's firm statement that the ID took place after the suspect was in the asylum not only completely contradicts Swanson's rather bizarre story, but carries the clear implication that the suspect couldn't even have been put on trial, let alone convicted and hanged. But we're dealing with the really mysterious fact that two men who would, under normal circumstances be seen as excellent historical witnesses, unwittingly contradict one another. This has to be dealt with in some way, and it is my belief that those who throw their hands in the air and say, 'We can't take either of them seriously if they don't agree' are historically irresponsible, given the demonstrable nature and positions of the two men; and the doubting rejectors are often (though not invariably) motivated by the urgent need to get them out of the way and make space for an alternative theory. But how you explain to yourself the problem will depend entirely on how you approach history. Paul Begg and I have taken different directions ever since the marginalia appeared: he assuming that Swanson must be given priority because he gives more details and a name which is echoed in Macnaghten, and I assuming that Anderson must be given priority since he cannot be shown to have made any mistakes while Swanson definitely includes erroneous material. It is, of course, sheer icing on the cake for me that Swanson's most egregious errors happen to fit David Cohen and not the man he names, and I had already suggested that the two men had been confused by the police before Swanson's marginalia emerged. " So now we have proposed before us : one suspect I.D. , no I.D., and herein 2 I.D.s. Do I hear 3, anyone ? Sir Robert
Author: David Radka Monday, 27 January 2003 - 12:21 am
"...Anderson's firm statement that the ID took place after the suspect was in the asylum not only completely contradicts Swanson's rather bizarre story, but carries the clear implication that the suspect couldn't even have been put on trial, let alone convicted and hanged." This aspect has always intrigued me. I would think that Anderson wrote that the suspect was identified after he was placed into the asylum because he didn't want to allude to the illegal identification he perpetrated at the Seaside Home. Essentially, he's covering his a here. Swanson doesn't need to cover his a because he figures his marginalia will never be seen by anyone, so he goes ahead and mentions the Seaside Home. If Anderson simply says "identification" then everyone assumes he means "at the police station." But there would be many policeman who would then say they don't recall it, and Anderson would have to answer questions. If he says "identification at the Seaside Home" then for sure he's got to answer questions, so that's right out. But if he says "at the asylum" he doesn't have to answer any questions, because nobody knows which asylum he means, plus asylums are supposed to be very confidential places anyway--the staff never speaks of the names of people there, or what goes on there. Additionally, Anderson knows the suspect did eventually go to the asylum, so it's just a little white lie nobody will ever know. This is how I think these things happened. David
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 04:20 am
I am going to have to cut my time back here - I have a book to write. Chris, I am sure that if you just do a little search of the archived material on this site you could find the many Stephen White discussions. However, in short, stories involving the Ripper were often included in press reports of the retirement or death of a police officer. The subject was always popular with the public as it is today. Stephen White died in 1919 and the sensational report you have referred to appeared in The People's Journal of Saturday September 27, 1919, page 6, under the title 'FACED "JACK THE RIPPER" - Detective Tried by Court of Anarchists' By A Scotland Yard Man. The story of some of White's alleged experiences was recounted in highly sensational form including his 'trial' by some anarchists he had infiltrated. As you can see, the writer was just shown as 'A Scotland Yard Man' and could have been some hack writer or freelance press man who made money of writing just such stories. Militating against this nonsense you have the fact that there is no mention or hint of it whilst White was still alive, nor was any such incident recounted in the official files, which contain enough on each of the murders for us to say that it never happened. To shed some common sense on this we merely have to look at White's obituary that appeared in the East London Observer of 27 September 1919, where we find what is almost certainly a more accurate but prosaic account of the alleged incident without the inventive embellishments of the storyteller:- "'DEATH OF A FAMOUS DETECTIVE - Officer who just Missed "Jack the Ripper."' ...He was engaged on the whole of the Jack the Ripper crimes, which caused such a grim sensation among East Enders. One night he was on what appeared to be a certain clue to the mysterious murderer of women in the Whitechapel region. He kept watch on an East End street, but the murderer's movements were not in accordance with anticipations. For about ten minutes only he left the street, and to his amazement he found on his return that a woman had been stabbed. He saw no man anywhere, and the mystery became even more baffling. As is well known, Jack the Ripper was never discovered." As you can see, this is rather different to the fantasy told in The People's Journal; gone is the 'cul-de-sac' and gone is the suspect allegedly seen. In fact, it sounds as if the incident reported here is a mundane stabbing as opposed to another Ripper crime. In view of this, and the fact that there is no record whatsoever of it prior to 1919, we have to dismiss any idea that it became connected with the 'City PC' story as it didn't even involve the sighting of a suspect. Best Wishes, Stewart More...
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 05:05 am
'The Seaside Home' is another subject that has been thrashed to death without satisfactory resolution. Those who use this pencilled claim from the margins of Swanson's copy of Anderson's book fill their theorising with 'must haves', 'could haves', 'suspicions', 'believe thats', etc. - all very highly unsatisfactory. And all this based on the supposition that two men 'could not' have been mistaken, confused or fabricating! The reference in Swanson's annotations is certainly odd. Martin claims that Anderson 'cannot be shown to have made any mistakes while Swanson definitely includes erroneous material.' And this is where Martin and Paul go their separate ways in their reasoning on this mess. Paul shows that Anderson (in the Blackwood's piece) says the identification took place in the asylum whilst Swanson says it took place in the 'Seaside Home', and that 'Anderson was clearly in error'. All this is so 'iffy' that no consensus is ever reached. If you look at my dissertation 'Kosminski and the Seaside Home An Answer', you will see a possible scenario for these events, that tries to stay as closely as possible to what the two men said. Other possibilites that may be looked into are the fact that there was a Jews' seaside convalescent home, although I do not know when that was established, and that one of the witnesses mentioned in the Sadler case (remember he was subjected to an identification) was at the 'Sailors' Home, opening up the possibility of a 'Sailors'/'Seamen's'/'Seaside' Home confusion. I hasten to add that this is just a piece of theorising. As we have seen, Martin accepts Swanson's 'error' that the suspect 'died shortly afterwards' (admission to Colney Hatch) as support for his suspect who died in 1889. However, he fails to even mention the R. Harding Davis report of Anderson's words, and Anderson's own 1910 words that totally invalidate such a suspect. Meanwhile, back at Paul's ranch... we find Anderson rejected as 'in error', as shown, with the statement that the suspect was identified after he had been 'caged in an asylum'. And I agree with Paul here. But it is worth noting that the attempted identification of Sadler as the Ripper was conducted a week after Kosminski had been sent to Colney Hatch. It is pointless to argue an 'illegal identification', for what would be the point of it. If it was illegal it couldn't be used, and the only evidence against the suspect would have been the identification. All else was suspicion. Such identifications involve more than two people and something would surely have been revealed in time. Anderson and Swanson could hardly conduct an identification on their own, and, at his high rank, Anderson would not have been involved in the practicalities. Also, Swanson's words "...identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us..." seems to indicate that even Swanson was not at the 'identification', otherwise he would have said "...where he was taken by us...". But this is all theorising on circumstances with a lack of hard data and accuracy. It's nice to see that David is now conceding a 'little white lie' to Anderson in his theorising. Let's face it guys, the whole story and the theorising based on it is a total shambles of supposition and unlikely scenarios.
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 05:09 am
Deleted - message posted twice.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 27 January 2003 - 08:24 am
Dear David, How did Sir Robert Anderson come to know Mary Jane Kelly (an Irish nun)? Rosey :-)
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Monday, 27 January 2003 - 09:23 am
As I have said all along, what we are witnessing on this thread is a Tumblety versus Kosminski proxy war. I find it staggering that anyone would claim that Swanson was fabricating claims in marginalia that were never intended to see the light of day. Here's a Martin Fido post from 5/15/02 that addresses what is really going on here in a far more erudite fashion than I ever could. "Alternatively, the historian may analyse the strands of contradiction, and offer a speculative source for them which is consistent with the way in which we can see that different storied have got confused together. That is what I have done; its vice of complication is (I hope)redeemed by the neatness of the explanation. It is open to anyone to accept either Paul's or my conclusion, or the third conclusion (preferred by Stewart Evand and Philip Sugden) "God alone knows how Swanson got himself into this mess, but it is an obvious mess, and means we can't rely on him as a source", or in a fourth direction, try to offer a new and better speculative sourcing of the error. Nobody, as far as I know, has as yet attempted this. And the only fault to be found with the holders of the Sugden/Evans position is their unfortunate tendency to use a tone that suggests it is folly to hold any other. Provided it is always recognized that Paul's position and mine are both offered as hypotheses to explain a definite lacuna in a crucial historical document, there can be no professional objection to either. And there is an inevitable professional objection to dismissing the marginalia on account of their definite errors. They are the recorded memories of a man who was really up close to the case. The fact that there was a whacking great error in the middle of his recollections is another histyorical fact, and one which screams for investigation and explanation. Anybody who dismisses it out of hand as unimportant 'because the police were so obviously at sixes and sevens' must be suspected instantly of having the ulterior motive of pushing another candidate as perpetrator, and so having to somehow get rid of some of the most important historical evidence we have about the case: the memories of the police officers who actually worked on it. "
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 27 January 2003 - 11:31 am
Hi Sir Robert, Actually, I think you are mistaken here. I don't believe this is a Tumblety/Kosminski war. Stewart is merely stating his observations of various articles atributed to Anderson. They demonstrate contradictory comments made by Anderson himself as well as some mistakes Anderson made. Stewart is merely giving us alternate views of the story about Anderson, such as people do to him with Tumblety. Now Stewart does hint that it is possible that these ID's may have happened, yet not of the particular suspects named by Swanson, Fido, or Begg. However, he doubts that they happened at all. As for the Marginalia it still hasn't been proven exactly what it means. For instance it could just be Swanson's way of remembering who Anderson was hinting towards in the book.(After all most reasons why people write notes in a book is to help them remember things about the story.) Not necessarily that Swanson ever saw this suspect or ever heard of the ID, but rather it was his way of remembering what Anderson told him. Regards, Chris H.
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Monday, 27 January 2003 - 12:17 pm
"As for the Marginalia it still hasn't been proven exactly what it means." Hi Chris, I couldn't agree more. Neither Anderson's various comments nor Swanson's Marginalia are exactly the bedrock for a solid case. I am focused more on whether or not it is reasonable to assert they were liars. Or fabricators, lol . Sir Robert
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 27 January 2003 - 12:54 pm
Hi Sir Robert, Stewart never goes out to say that Anderson and Swanson are liars/fabricators though. He does state they have lied or been mistaken about certain things on several occassions.(And he doesn't state this without providing evidence.) But hey we've all lied about different things in the past does that mean we're all liars? If so well then it shouldn't be such a bad thing to call someone a liar then. Stewart isn't implicating them as bad people who generally reworked things for their own needs. Rather he's just stating that the evidence we have involving this 'indentification' is at many times contradictorary and that Anderson has made many mistakes concerning the case when making reports about it. Regards, Chris H.
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 01:03 pm
I have done nothing here to promote any suspect. My book on Tumblety was published in 1995, since which I have published nothing on him alone as a suspect. The book was factual and did not contain invention or fantasy. I presented points militating against him as a suspect, well as those in support. I have, in the past, addressed the issues raised against his candidacy. Since then, and that is some time ago, I have avoided debate on him as a suspect and my published work has been objective and mainly in the nature of being reference material. It should also be remembered that Tumblety's name was revealed to Ripper research in the Littlechild letter and that he status as a suspect was described by ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild. I did not invent him as my suspect. I also have stated that I have not proved Tumblety to be the Ripper, and that the identity of the Ripper was likely to remain a mystery. It is puerile to become involved in baseless and insulting argument and I have only addressed the points raised by other posters. If you care to look back you will see a long past post of Martin's quoted in support of the Andersonite argument. I can only suppose that those who have to quote such lengthy posts of others are incapable of reasoning for themselves and actually do not contribute anything new to these boards by way of information. Swanson made the notes in his book adding to what Anderson had written. Now I have actually read and photographed these notes first-hand, and have commented on them in the past. Whatever the basis was for the notes we don't know, and what the intention was for writing them we do not know. For if they were never intended to be seen, it could be argued, well why write them at all? The point is, as is often repeated, some of the points made could be the result of a confused memory, false information supplied in the past or another reason that we will never know of. Perhaps, at the time, Swanson wrote them as he planned to write an article on the subject as Anderson had been so vociferously and publicly attacked in the press over them. It would be in his nature to support his old chief, but then changed his mind, preferring to write nothing at all. This is a plausible answer to the question of why he should write them, and it cannot be ignored. To recap, my last post was in response to the whole 'Seaside Home' debacle being raised by the posting of a huge statement of Martin's. It is not my intention here to denigrate the work of others but I would assume that those who have read the books presenting the arguments are aware of the selective nature of the writing and the fact that relevant historical information is omitted where it militates against Anderson. The facts must speak for themselves, and anyone reading this thread will see that I am quoting facts where they are known and making informed comment upon areas where others are obviously confused. I personally do not have the blinkered attitude shown by some who cling to certain theorising and I am happy to accept new information, whatever it might indicate, and I personally have provided much new information on Anderson. I have a lot more that has not been published. Martin has long seen fit to accuse those who present information on Anderson, that militates against him, of making personal attacks on him and denigrating him from personal motives. But it is not personal attack, it is the need to present the full story and relevant information for those who do not know to make up their minds from a better and more knowledgeable standpoint. It is unfortunate that anyone who presents a suspect will be challenged by others with different viewpoints. This is natural and to be expected. I have known Martin personally for many years and have had long discussions with him. He has even stayed with us as our guest. So I do not need telling what he says and what he thinks. Phil Sugden is a very good friend of mine and has no personal suspect argument. He feels the Ripper has never been named and is never likely to be. Yes, he has his own opinions (we all do) but he has no 'ulterior motive' for what he has written about Anderson. He is a trained historian and a highly intelligent commentator. And, as I have ceaselessly tried to point out, it is not a case of 'getting rid of important historical evidence', if that is how you see it, it is a case of trying to explain it and gauge its historical value. What the Andersonites don't appear to like is the fact that that 'evidence' isn't quite as reliable and important as they would like it to be. I have to thank Chris for his sane and kind support, and for recognising my stance. However, I am very busy and involved in heavy research and writing. I have no time to argue with those who do not appear to be capable of thinking for themselves and who make insulting innuendos. They will be pleased to hear that I am quitting the boards. I've got better things to do.
Author: Richard P. Dewar Monday, 27 January 2003 - 01:25 pm
Hi Stewart, Let me express to you my hope that you remain on the boards. I have long admired your work and always enjoyed your posts. I do disagree with you slightly over the interpretation of Anderson. Yet, I know for a fact that your position is based on a good faith and is very well reasoned and informed. You are perhaps the most objective writer on the case. Anyone familiar with your writing knows that when you presented your suspect you also included information that mitigated against him being Jack the Ripper. You have never stated, as so many authors do, that your suspect was the killer. For that I salute you. It is one of the aspects I respect about both you and Paul Begg. (Indeed, personally, my hunch is that Kosminski may have assaulted Stride, Barrett may have murdered Kelly, and Tumblety may have killed the others). Unfortunately, when on a website, you may run into people who are unfamiliar with the body of your work or reputation. You have been a wonderful resource over the years since I have been on the boards - and have always enjoyed your posts. Additionally, you have been kind to me in answering inquiries had before about some areas of the case. Rich
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Monday, 27 January 2003 - 01:39 pm
"They will be pleased to hear that I am quitting the boards. I've got better things to do." I am sorry to hear that you feel you need to quit the boards in response to very legitimate questions regarding your motivations in denigrating Anderson and Swanson. I have quoted Fido and Begg because they are experts in the field, as are you, yet offer a different take on the subject at hand than you do.I did not realize that I needed your permission to cite other authors, or that it is evidence of a lack of originality. The irony of all this is that I'm a fan of your books and think Tumblety is a very viable suspect. But as we say in New York, don't let the door hit you on your way out. Sir Robert
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 01:44 pm
Hi Rich, Many thanks for the kind words. It is pleasing to know that some appreciate what I do. I am sorry to be quitting, but work really does mean that I don't have the time for these lengthy debates. I think Paul had the same problem when he was writing his last book. I have said before that no one is obliged to fully agree with me, it would be a boring world if we did all agree. But I do ask for common sense to prevail, and for the publication of as much information as possible to allow the general reader to reach an informed opinion. The word of some in this field, as in many other fields, carries more weight than others. And it is an unfortunate fact that they expect their every word to be accepted without question, and get annoyed when others, who are also informed, challenge their words. I do not question the value of this site nor of free speech. I am amazed at the increased level of general knowledge on this subject and the intelligent consideration and constructive criticism that is to be found here. There is only a small element that I am not impressed with. But that is only my opinion. I am pleased that I have assisted over the years. It cannot be said of me that I got interested in the case to write a book, for that was a labour of love for me. I was interested in the case for over thirty years before my first book was published. And I have always taken a particular interest in the police side of things for the reason that I was a police officer for nearly thirty years. Anyway, my detractors will be glad to see the back of me. Thanks again to those who have either supported me or understood my viewpoint. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Dan Norder Monday, 27 January 2003 - 02:13 pm
This is not a Tumblety vs. Kosminski war. It's just looking at the evidence related to the supposed identification. Stewart has found many holes in the theory that a suspect was identified as the Ripper. That's just looking at the facts of the case in general. We all know Stewart likes Tumblety as a suspect, but to brush off everything he says because of that is pretty silly. Nothing he has said in this thread advances Tumblety in any way, and he has stuck very close to the known facts, unlike many here who assume Anderson had to have been both truthful and correct about his beliefs even though that contradicts other known evidence. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Monday, 27 January 2003 - 02:26 pm
"We all know Stewart likes Tumblety as a suspect, but to brush off everything he says because of that is pretty silly." Dan, I don't believe anyone has been dismissive of Stewart's points or contributions. The specific issue here is not even whether or not Anderson was mistaken - which he almost certainly was - it is whether or not Anderson and/or Swanson were fabricating their stories. Let us not forget that Stewart STARTED this thread by taking issue with Paul spending so much attention to Kosminski in his new book. Sir Robert
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 02:43 pm
Robert, I am not quitting the boards solely in response to what you see as 'very legitimate questions regarding my motivations for denigrating Anderson and Swanson.' True, I do not like some of your insulting suggestions, but the points you have raised require to be addressed at some length, and that I do not have the time to do. First, I have stated my reasons for this thread and it would appear that several people agree with me and have appreciated additional information I have supplied. And if stating the written words of the two men involved is 'denigrating them' in your opinion, then so be it. It would be rather naive to believe that anyone couldn't lie or fabricate a story to make the record look better. Anderson patently does this in regard to the Poplar case. Also, it is even admitted by some of Anderson's greatest supporters that he was extremely dogmatic and a bigot. If you have not read his two books touching on crime, then you really should do so, it might change your opinion of him somewhat. It is fine to quote other authors, but a full page of screed is rather more than 'a quote' in my opinion. But, you don't need my permission to do anything (what a strange comment of yours that was). When you quote objectivity I would take a closer look at the books you are referring to if I were you. Any book that espouses a particular suspect idea immediately loses a degree of objectivity. And it cannot be gainsaid that in their published works Martin and Paul favour Anderson's word and the theories constructed around it such as Cohen on the one hand, and Kosminski on the other. And there is nothing wrong with that. But to argue it at length and selectively in a book will result in the loss of more objectivity. In my opinion such bias has no place in a reference work. Your arguments might carry more weight if they were of your own construction and contained more evidence to support them. Thank you for saying that you like my books, that is appreciated as you didn't have to say it. I'm watching that door... Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 02:47 pm
Dan, Thanks for that, appreciated as I know that your opinion is not swayed by any bias, either way, and that if you feel something you will say it. Stewart
Author: Chris Phillips Monday, 27 January 2003 - 03:03 pm
Stewart Thank you for the additional material from the East London Observer on White's role - interesting in that it's a similar story with the rather vital difference that "he saw no man anywhere"! And thank you for the thoughts about "other" Seaside Homes. All useful food for thought.
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 03:06 pm
Robert, This goes on and on. In response to the above comment to Dan, I would say this. It is wrong to say that I started this thread by 'taking issue with Paul spending so much attention to Kosminski in his book'. I cited Paul's coverage as the current example of the importance attached to Anderson and the theory deriving mainly from him. And I have always agreed with Anderson's importance. If I didn't I wouldn't spend so much time researching him and discussing him. Now that does not make it the 'suspect war' you have suggested. I have allowed for all the possibilities in trying to interpret the Anderson/Swanson story, and for the realist that must include the possibility of fabrication. Let's be real about this. Yes, I commented on the fact that Paul devoted twice as much space to that theory than he did any other, but that is a fact. It is a fact that indicates the importance Paul attaches to the theory. Also the lengthy coverage of Anderson himself is another pointer. But, really, does justification for starting any thread need to made. It shouldn't but when dark underlying motives are hinted and denigration for the sake of it is suggested, then someone has lost the plot. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Brian Schoeneman Monday, 27 January 2003 - 04:15 pm
Stewart, I want to thank you for starting this thread - it was very interesting, and the information provided will be of good use to me as I pursue my book idea. I also want to thank you publicly for all of the assistance you've given me - you didn't have to do any of the things you've done, and while I don't believe anyone here has made personal attacks against your character, I think they need to know that you are a gracious and generous individual, even to those of us with grandiose ideas that may not get off the ground. That being said, I think that the debate regarding the veracity of the statements of Anderson is a critical one, and it needed to be brought up. I have always been of the opinion that Anderson's contribution to the case - while ample - was a bit "fluffed up" by him, and it is refreshing to have that confirmed by someone who I know for sure knows more than I do about it. As a group, I think we all are a bit biased by our assumptions and ideas in which we ground any theories or beliefs we have about the case. Add into that any personal bias that we may have on the idea of a suspect, and I doubt that anyone here can say they are completely unbiased. So arguing suspect proxy wars, or fans-of-certain-author wars here isn't very productive: everyone has a different opinion. I also think (and of course, I am biased) that you have shown ample examples of Anderson being less than truthful, and ample statements that contradict others that he made. I've yet to see anyone rationalize his contradictions. My question to the Andersonophiles out there, in an effort to get back to debating his merits, is to ask "Why did Anderson get tapped for the CID job?" I really can't think of any way he'd be qualfied, save for his Home Office contacts and Monro's dual Special Branch/CID job. Hopefully someone can shed some light on this for me. B