Archive through 31 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 31 January 2003

Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: Police Officials: Dr Robert Anderson: Archive through 31 January 2003

Author: Richard P. Dewar Monday, 27 January 2003 - 04:56 pm
Hi Brian, I have to disagree with you. I have found many historians and writers who have personal theories yet are able to put them aside and evaluate evidence in an unbiased way - and I certainly place Stewart in this category. He has demonstrated time and time again his patience with neophytes like myself who sometimes hold contrary positions. If you have read Mr. Evans work, you would see that he can even view his own suspect through the prism of objectivity - offering information that is sometimes mitigating against his own suspect. Mr. Evans has dared to suggest that Stride and Kelly may not be Ripper victims - and has been excoriated in some quarters for doing so. Specifically, he is often criticized for his objectivity. I do not know Mr. Evans personally - but my impression of him, based on his posts and his books, is that he looks at information like a good detective. Yes, he does think the evidence leads in a certain direction but is open-minded enough to see contrary evidence, too. Quite frankly, I disagree with some of the conclusions Stewart has come to regarding Anderson. But I disagree with those who seem to conclude that because he raises legitimate criticism of Anderson he is therefore biased. If one reads carefully, Stewart has never said that Anderson was wrong. He has continually said that Kosminski is an important suspect. What he has done, and with evidence, is show why he doubts the accuracy of Anderson's remarks and why he does not believe Kosminski was the killer. You are correct that there are some writers who propose a suspect, who state categorically that their suspect is the actual killer, then seek to dismiss information damaging to their theory. Stewart is not like that at all. Based on their writings and my communications with them, I feel confident that Paul Begg and Stewart Evans have looked at the evidence and come to their own differing and honest opinions about the most likely Ripper suspect. What I find appealing about both writers is they acknowledge that there really is no "proof" that their suspect was the killer - but some evidence and inferences. I believe both authors, upon reviewing the data, have come to separate conclusions - unlike many authors who come to the case with their notions then shape their research to compliment their preconceptions. What gets mangled, in my opinion, is when readers who do not understand what they are saying seeing bias that is not really there. This frequently happens, I believe, when readers are not familiar with the bodies of their work. Everyone familiar with Mr. Begg and Mr. Evans know that their favored suspects (Kosminski and Tumblety) represent a small percentage of their contributions to the case. Regards, Rich
Author: Brian Schoeneman Monday, 27 January 2003 - 05:26 pm
Rich, Other than the "unbiased" idea, I agree with everything you've said. However, that being said, I think we all need to realize that we all bring some kind of bias into this case. My personal bias is towards the usefullness of profiling, and a critical eye towards the media's roll, and Matthews' and Anderson's conduct throughout the investigation. And despite the fact that I can identify my biases, that doesn't erase them. Even when I'm trying to be completely objective. You are assuming that when I say "bias" I'm using the term derisively, as if it were a flaw. It's not - just a fact of life. Stewart, Paul, me, you, Radka - we all have internal biases that are reflected in our writings and opinions on the case. To ignore them is to ignore human nature. In any event, I think that you are right - Kosminski is an important suspect, and so is Tumblety. As you can see by reading my profile, they are two of my favorites. But by no means do I think there is enough evidence to convict either man, either in a real court or the court of public opinion. Like Philip Sugden, I don't think we know who the Ripper was, nor will we ever. B
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Monday, 27 January 2003 - 06:34 pm
"Thank you for saying that you like my books, that is appreciated as you didn't have to say it. " Dear Lord, Stewart! I've said in a Cornwell related thread that I'm a big fan of yours and have all your books. I've even read them!! lol I have a simple bias, perhaps as the son of a law enforcement official, not to mention the decendant of Dublin Presbyterians by the name of Anderson: I give police officers the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe for a minute that Kosminski was the Ripper. I do, however, believe that SOMETHING happened SOMEWHERE with SOMEONE to influence Anderson and Swanson's belief that there was SOME form of I.D. Regards, Sir Robert
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 27 January 2003 - 06:36 pm
Thank you all, appreciated. All good wishes, Stewart
Author: Chris Hintzen Monday, 27 January 2003 - 06:56 pm
Hi Sir Robert, I guess this means that you are just defending Robert Anderson because you share his name? I mean if Stewart is trying to tear apart Anderson because of Tumbelty then I guess you must be trying to put Anderson on a Pedestal that no one can knock down because you share his name? This is how silly your arguement is. All that Stewart has stated was some information that is a bit against Anderson. Does that mean Stewart is attacking Anderson? No. Does that mean Stewart is attacking all those who support Anderson? No. He's just providing us with both sides of the coin. Nothing more than that. But hey if you believe Stewart is so wrong, perhaps you should go through Begg's and Fido's books and see if those quotes that Stewart has given us, which displays a bit of contradictory and mistaken comments by Anderson are ever even published in said books. Because that is all Stewart is saying here. That the works supporting Anderson as 'unfailing', 'undaunted', and 'precise' tend to leave out the above quotes from Anderson's OWN lips that Stewart has given us to look over. That's the entire arugement here. So if Stewart is so wrong, then prove it. If Stewart is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, then again prove it. It's no secret that I myself have heavily debated Stewart on Tumblety.(Particularly Tumbelty's actual importance as a Ripper Suspect.) But Stewart has never tried to 'one-side' an arguement or a debate. And Stewart has been gracious enough to admit when he is wrong.(Which does happen, but only VERY rarely.) Nor has Stewart ever stooped to defaming another Researcher or any Official ever involved with this case. At worst Stewart has only given us both sides of an arguement to view along with his own assumptions on which side said arguement might lean. However, he has NEVER stated that his opinion is LAW. He has given evidence that supports his assumptions, nothing more. And he himself will admit when certain assumptions are a bit flimsy, and mere conjecture. And at best Stewart has been a beacon of knowledge for this case. A lighthouse that leads us in from the dark. And just like a lighthouse he shows us not only the calm seas but those rough rocks that could scuttle many of our's research. The funny thing about this case is that EVERYTHING is debatable. We have evidence that points us one way, but doesn't necessarily mean that it's a one way street. That's all I believe Stewart is saying here. That there are two sides to every coin. No one is infallible. No one is above making mistakes. Not Sir Robert Anderson. Not Jack the Ripper. Not even Stewart himself. Regards, Chris H. P.S. Stewart, I'm sure you feel that many of your detractors will be happy to see you go, but I assure you that after a short period of time they will all hope to herald your return. You've given us so much information, that you've helped bring much of the Ripper Research out of the veritable 'Dark Ages'. Without your's and several of your colleague's work we'd be babes lost in the woods. I Salute You Sir. We may not have always agreed, but I do thank you for your deeply-involved research and your well thought out opinions on all matters dealing with this case. Good Luck with the new book!
Author: Billy Markland Monday, 27 January 2003 - 07:30 pm
In an effort to add a bit of levity to a situation which seems in some danger of spinning totally out of control, may I present this? One day, Stewart, Melvin, and Phil were out on a boat fishing. After a while, Stewart stands up and says, "Excuse me but I must pay a visit to the gent's room" and with that, he steps over the side of the boat and walks across the water to shore. Melvin stares bugeyed and cuts a glance at Phil who continues to fish as if nothing had happened. Soon, Melvin sees Stewart walking back to the boat over the water. "Hramphhh" mutters Melvin to himself, "too much diary dust must be making me imagine things" and with that, he continues fishing himself. A few minutes later, Phil stands and excuses himself to pay a visit himself. While Melvin watches intently, Phil steps over the side of the boat and HE walks across the water to the shore and back again. "Psshaw", nothing to it" Melvin grumbles to himself. Soon, Melvin nonchalantly stands up and announces that he must pay a visit himself, and with that, steps over the side of the boat and sinks to the bottom! Stewart and Phil, in consternation, look over the side of the boat at the slowly rising stream of bubbles and then at each other. "Do you think we should of told him about the rocks?" Phil asked. Best of wishes, Billy
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Monday, 27 January 2003 - 08:15 pm
Dear Brian, THAT is the question...to be or not to be! You are an exceptionally suspicious mind. But in this instance, I think you are justified in THAT question. Rosey :-)
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Monday, 27 January 2003 - 10:10 pm
" I mean if Stewart is trying to tear apart Anderson because of Tumbelty then I guess you must be trying to put Anderson on a Pedestal that no one can knock down because you share his name? " Hey Chris, Are you serious with this remark? Where have I indicated that I have put Anderson on a pedestal? Please be so kind as to quote me where I have done so. Do you really think that I am supporting him because I just happen to share his name?? OK - to be clear, once again : My screen name is Sir Robert Anderson, because Robert Anderson happens to be my real name. The "Sir" is a joke. Still following ? Next - I respect the amazing work Stewart has done on the case over the years. Still with me? IMHO, ANDERSON WAS WRONG. However, I have a problem with someone making the claim that Anderson and/or Swanson were liars or fabricators. I'd even be willing to throw Anderson to the wolves, but not the Swanson Marginalia. If you make that claim, I will ask to see your evidence and question your motive for making the allegation. If you are advancing the cause of a particular suspect, then by default I will reason that you are making this allegation in order to totally discredit other points of view that may or not be correct. Back to the hunt for the Ripper! Sir Robert
Author: R.J. Palmer Monday, 27 January 2003 - 10:56 pm
To Kosminskites everywhere: A question. A problem. Something to consider. Under what circumstances would Swanson know about the identitification of Aaron the Ripper, and Macnaghten--who was Chief Constable, and deputy to Anderson--not know about it? How is this remarkable 'fact' [?] to be explained? Or do you concede that Macnaghten did know about it, and rejected it? Or is there some other explaination? Do you hold that the identification was a renegade operation? If so, is there a less likely place for such an operation to take place than in a Police convalescent home? Questions, only. Looking for answers... Dear Caz--Sorry for the delay in responding. Anderson's exact words were "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him." Now, I don't believe we can take this literally. Nowhere does Anderson say "I was there." But for the sake of argument, I always believed Anderson meant that the witness identified the suspect and only later learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew, at which time he retracted his identification. "but when he learned the suspect was a fellow-Jew..." Besides being a rather ugly allegation, this, to me, all but rules out the possibility that the witness knew the suspect or was related to him, etc., as is sometimes suggested. The witness was, therefore, a stranger to the suspect. This begs the question, how on earth was he able to make a positive identification a year and a half later? PC Barrett had trouble identifying the bloke in Wentworth Street on the night of the Tabram murder within the next day or two. And Phil Sugden, I believe, quotes a college study of eyewitness identifications and how passing time totally destroyed their accuracy. It's a difficult one to accept or explain. Cheers.
Author: David Radka Monday, 27 January 2003 - 11:35 pm
The more I read what's said about Anderson above, the more I realize that folks inexplicably don't attribute the capacity to tell white lies to him. It seems you either have to hold him up as totally reliable and truth-telling with Fido, or else you figure him for Nixonesque prevarication and fling him right out the door like Evans. Neither is true. Anderson was a Victorian concrete Christian of a school only the better thinkers can imagine nowadays. He was capable of telling lies for the sake of higher truths. When will get beyond the Fido vs. Evans, or the whoever vs. the whomever? Hmmmmm??? David
Author: Harry Mann Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 03:18 am
For the witness,Anderson or Swanson to declare that a certain person was a murderer,there would have to be,to their knowledge,certain irrefutable evidence that proved the person to be so. That evidence would also,because the witness was not associated with the others,have come to each by different sources. Perhaps those who favour a possitive identification as taking place,will attempt to explain what that evidence might have been,and then detail where in the Ripper story,that evidence can be found. What is unfair is to insist a happening took place,and when questioned on the source for such thinking,exclaim,"But someone said it did,and they were in a position to know". Such statements should only be accepted if there is evidence supporting that statement.In the case of an identification of the ripper,as proclaimed by Anderson,there is none. As Stewart Evans has so rightly said,it would be best for posters to arrive at conclusions by a study of the available information on their own initiative,and not be led by quoting other writers ideas. One other question.If indeed Anderson or Swanson,collectively or singularly,did come into possession of the killers identity,why suppress it.What was so alarming,that the identity of an obscure Jew,should not be declared beyond their own selves.Why couldn't the identity of the witness and the place of witnessing be made public.Except for the inane"It wouldn't be in the publics interest to know",no explanation is tendered. Are you supporters satisfied with that.
Author: Caroline Morris Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 07:24 am
Hi All, My brain hurts when I try to think purely for myself and totally unaided - which is why I don�t mind admitting that I take the views of everyone else here, authors and laymen alike, and weigh them up alongside what little hard evidence there is against any individual suspect before setting down my own thoughts. However, my opinions and observations will never be influenced by the popularity or otherwise of a particular view. I find it totally irrelevant whether �most people think� one way, or �hardly anyone thinks� another way. I will judge every argument on its own merits � who is making it or how many agree or disagree with it could not matter less. Hi RJ, Anderson's exact words were: "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him." Now this is either a load of old nonsense because it's a load of old nonsense, or it only comes across as a load of old nonsense to us because of great gaps in our information, and great gaps in our understanding of what was in Anderson's mind as he uttered it. For a start, we don't know for certain who the suspect was or what he looked like. So we don't know how likely it would be that a Jewish witness, who had a good enough look at the 'murderer' to identify him at once, would not realise he was a fellow Jew until told about it later. How does that work exactly? Who would inform the witness about the suspect's Jewishness - before he decides whether to give evidence against him formally? As Stewart has 'ceaselessly tried to point out, it is not a case of 'getting rid of important historical evidence'...it is a case of trying to explain it and gauge its historical value.' Those who would 'explain' it away, by suggesting the whole thing was a piece of combined Anderson/Swanson fantasy, wishful thinking, self-delusion, general cockup or what have you, and go on to 'gauge its historical value' as nil, are IMHO coming perilously close to Stewart�s own warning about 'getting rid of important historical evidence'. It is human nature to want to ignore or dismiss a piece of the jigsaw puzzle that doesn't make sense as it is - even more so if it conflicts with our own idea of the finished picture. The trouble is there are too many missing pieces in this case to know if one of them could make the troublesome ones vital. If, for instance, someone could prove Mary Kelly died after the alleged sighting by Carrie Maxwell, her testimony would be one such troublesome piece that many of us here would be frantically scouring our dustbins to retrieve! Would anyone still argue that the woman had to be mistaken or fabricating? (Yet she could still have been wrong, because Kelly could have stayed in her room all the time.) Leaving aside my reservations about Littlechild's opinion that Tumblety made a very likely suspect (based in part, as I think it must be, on the erroneous stated belief that Dr.T did away with himself after the last ripper murder), I still think Littlechild had it about right when he wrote that Anderson only thought he knew. But Anderson couldn't have �thought� any such thing unless he believed that a Jewish suspect had been fingered by a Jewish witness, and that the total sum of his information was good enough for him, and satisfied him that the ripper had been identified. That said, the total sum of the information left to us is not nearly good enough for me to favour any of the usual suspects, and I do wonder how many satisfied 'Kosminskites' you think are reading, let alone contributing their thoughts to this thread! Love, Caz
Author: Chris Hintzen Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 10:10 am
Hi Sir Robert, Actually if you continue reading my post you will notice that what I said was sarcastic. Basically it was my way of saying how silly your arguement is that this is a Kosminski/Tumblety War. You are correct in stating that your arguements for Sir Robert Anderson has nothing to do with you sharing his name. However, Stewart's arguements against Anderson or those who theorize on the 'Anderson Suspect' being the Ripper has nothing to do with the fact that he wrote a book on a different suspect. So if my name comparison arguement is silly, then so is your arguement against Stewart equally as silly. All Stewart has done is give you both sides of the coin. He states that many of the books that hold the 'Anderson Suspect' as being the Ripper tend to 'overlook' many mistakes and instances where Anderson has fabricated a story.(Such as the one with the Murder Suspect as well as the Poplar Case.) Stewart has given us evidence of these 'omissions'. And the best part of it, is that Stewart's evidence comes from the LIPS of Anderson HIMSELF! So what Stewart has said is, here you've been given this information about Anderson which makes him seem rather 'infallible', however, you might want to look at this information which shows that Anderson did make mistakes and did lie on occasion, so you be the judge on what actually happened. Stewart has never implicated Swanson of lying or fabricating. Stewart, like myself, believes that the Swanson Marginalia doesn't exactly mean that Swanson was privy to any identification. Rather they could just be notes written by him, to help him remember a story that Anderson was saying.(After all much of the Marginalia is repetitive of various articles that Anderson had made in the Press.) So you've asked for evidence on Anderson(Swanson can't be brought into this, because it was never stated that he lied) ever lying or making mistakes. Stewart has given you this. Now I ask you to bring forward any evidence in which Stewart is attempting to defame, or speak any untruths about, Anderson or any of the books published by those theorizing on the 'Anderson Suspect'. Because as I see it, all Stewart has done is brought evidence forward that was left out of these books, given his own opinion based on all the evidence available(including those brought forward by those supporters of the 'Anderson Suspect'), and left us to make our own assumptions. I myself agree that an indentification took place. And like yourself I believe that Anderson's idea that this suspect HAD TO BE Jack the Ripper was wrong.(Actually I believe Stewart himself agrees with both of us up to this point.) Now what I believe Stewart is saying here is that Anderson knew that this suspect didn't 'HAVE TO BE' Jack the Ripper,(Just as Anderson knew that Mylett's death didn't 'HAVE TO BE' an accident.) but stated it as such to make sure that he either didn't have a blemish on his career, or simply to placate his own ego. That doesn't necessitate him as a liar or a fabricator, rather Anderson didn't like to be continously haunted by 'the one who got away', which apparently the papers still seemed to be doing decades after the case was closed. Or it could be as simple as Littlechild himself said, 'Anderson only Thought he knew,' and which hypothesis Abberline also agreed with.(Among others.) Regards, Chris H.
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 10:30 am
"Such statements should only be accepted if there is evidence supporting that statement.In the case of an identification of the ripper,as proclaimed by Anderson,there is none." Surely this is doody water. The evidence supporting Anderson is in the first sense Swanson, in the second sense the known historical record of Aaron Kosminski maintained by the work house and asylum, and in the third sense McNaghten. Legitimate all. David
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 03:17 pm
To avoid contention I will place a few posts that are merely extracts from Anderson's writings and they will thus allow readers to see more information on which to base their ideas:- "Great crimes are seldom 'undetected'; but of course it is one thing to discover the author of a crime, and a different matter altogether to obtain legal evidence of his guilt. And in this country the evidence must be available when an accused person is placed under arrest. Not so in countries where the police are armed with large despotic powers which enable them to seize a criminal without any evidence at all, and to build up a case against him at leisure, extracting the needed proofs, it may be, from his own unwilling lips. The peril to the community caused by common crimes, as distinguished from crimes of the first magnitude, will be obvious to the thoughtful. For example, a man who murders his own wife is not necessarily a terror to the wives of other men. A man who kills his personal enemy excites no dread in the breast of strangers. Or again, take a notorious case of a different kind, 'the Whitechapel murders' of the autumn of 1888. At that time the sensation-mongers of the newspaper press fostered the belief that life in London was no longer safe, and that no woman ought to venture abroad in the streets after nightfall. And one enterprising journalist went so far as to impersonate the cause of all this terror as 'Jack the Ripper,' a name by which he will probably go down to history. But no amount of silly hysterics could alter the fact that these crimes were a cause of danger only to a particular section of a small and definite class of women, in a limited district of the East End; and that the inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl, as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safely caged in an asylum." - Sir Robert Anderson, Criminals and Crime, 1907, pp. 2-4.
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 03:33 pm
"No one is a murderer in the sense in which many men are burglars. At least 'the Whitechapel murderer' of 1888 is the only exception to this in recent years. And that case, by the way, will serve to indicate the difference I wish to enforce. In my first chapter I alluded to the fact of that fiend's detention in an asylum. Now the inquiry that leads to the discovery of a criminal of that type is different from the inquiry, for example, by which a burglar may often be detected." - Sir Robert Anderson, Criminals and Crime, 1907, p.77.
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 03:39 pm
"When I speak of efficiency some people will exclaim, "But what about all the undetected crimes?" I may say here that in London at least the undetected crimes are few. But English law does not permit of an arrest save on legal evidence of guilt, and legal evidence is often wholly wanting where moral proof is complete and convincing. Were I to unfold the secrets of Scotland Yard about crimes respecting which the police have been disparaged and abused in recent years, the result would be a revelation to the public. But this is not my subject here." - Sir Robert Anderson, Criminals and Crime, 1907, p.81.
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 05:41 pm
It seems to me also Stewart, that the Ripper knew who he was going to kill before he struck, though I wouldn't guess how long it was he knew before each murder, I think each was opportunity, and how long did the opportunity last before striking?-- a few minutes,- or an evening?. I think he and the victims were a circle of aquaintances, maybe speaking, maybe nodding, but I think they knew each other,--thats what made it so easy for him. Mary Kelly's killing was different? if it was different it was because it wasn't planned. Stewart, you goin this time, or have you forgot again Rick
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 06:50 pm
Dear RJ., I think you should think carefully about what our illustrious collegue D.Radka writes above...you only gets one chance in a lifetime, my friend. Incidently, we perceive 'this world' in a rather odd fashion, we see -in fact- only 3 degrees... and another 120 (?) is peripheral vision, which aids the focal vision. Visually, we appear to be a very short-sighted species. But more curious still, I am reliably informed that the cortex hold some remarkable mysteries, one of which concerns...what sound awfully like D.Radka's "black holes" ! Curious and curiouser. Rosey :-)
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 06:57 pm
Dear Warwick, ...and what if all the suspects knew each other? Rosey :-))
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 07:26 pm
Rosey, thats unnecessary complication,
Author: Warwick Parminter Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 07:27 pm
Made bets as to who would get the most blame
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 10:35 pm
"in the third sense, Macnaghten". Macnaghten on the record: 'I tend to exonerate [Kosminski]' Macnaghten off the record: [via Griffiths]: "the evidence against [Kosminski] was weak." Caz--No, I reckon you're right. No satisfied Kosminskiites anywhere in sight; yet I can't help thinking that it's generally dangerous to a theory to leave unanswered questions lying about. Especially the nagging sort.
Author: R.J. Palmer Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 10:38 pm
Rosey--Thanks. I'm happy here on the wrong track. Best wishes, RP
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 28 January 2003 - 11:42 pm
McNaghten recognized in his exoneration. Sort of a Cartesian situation. He is exonerated, therefore he is. Good enough for third place, IMHO. David
Author: Harry Mann Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 02:48 am
David, I am prepared to accept Anderson's statement,if you will provide a basis for doing so. Where did this identification take place,and who were the suspect and witness. One more question for you."The only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him". By what manner did the witness signify he had identified the suspect,in what capacity was he making the identification,and how was the result of this identification conveyed to Anderson.
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 09:17 am
I am amazed at how some of these discussions spin out of control, and I find myself agreeing with David - why must we believe that what Anderson said was either entirely true and accurate, or wholly deliberate fabrication? Why not the more normal human mix of truth, error, opinion, exaggeration etc? We can conclude that either Anderson or Swanson were in error about at least some issues, or at least confused, or facts now unknown were available to them. We know that Anderson made statements on other occasions where he interpreted supposition as fact. We know that on other occasions he made statements which contradicted evidence he should have known about. That is, there is no corroboration that lets us say conclusively they spoke 100% factual truth, and some reason to suppose they did not. Therefore, although we retain the choice of assuming that everything they said regarding JtR was 100% true, that position is clearly capable of being disputed in the light of the currently available facts. (Kosminski wasn't dead, or there was another Kosminski - called Cohen or otherwise; the witness did not definitely see the murderer or there was another witness) Equally, we have no motive to assign to either Anderson or Swanson for making the whole thing up other than a desire to have no unsolved cases - but in any case to claim that is their motive is also hardly an unassailable position. So, why not run with one the more simplistic explanations, which is that what we have probably bears some relation to the truth but is not, in itself, exactly what occurred, maybe not even very close. Or alternatively there is some major information that they had but we did not (another witness, another Kosminski) that would make all their statements accurate. Perhaps a useful thing to do would be to continue what I started above and list the controversies raised by their statements and see if they all have a 'legit' explanation that still lets every statement, written or oral, by Anderson and Swanson actually be 100% true and accurate. Regards Pete
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 11:20 am
Hey Pete, You raise some excellent points. Ripperology isn't black and white; it's shades of grey. At the risk of being called "puerile" again, I would like to introduce for discussion the full text of The City Press for 1/7/05. (This is to be found on the Casebook site and is also quoted in Stewart's The Ultimate JtR Companion.) Inspector Robert Sagar was the City police representative to the nightly meetings of the Met detective heads working on the Ripper case. I'm posting the entire article because I think it's important to realize that Sagar was not some ignorant bloke but quite intelligent and educated. It is clear from his remarks that the City C.I.D. had a suspect, which IMHO goes to support what Swanson says. Sagar would have been someone quite informed on the grass roots level. Please note where the article says "Identification being impossible...." NOW WHAT THE #$%! does THAT MEAN??????????? I am sure we will have a field day here trying to parse this to either bolster or discredit Anderson. Sir Robert $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ City Press - 7 January 1905 The City Press (London) Saturday, 7 January 1905 A FAMOUS CITY DETECTIVE. SOME OF HIS EXPERIENCES RETOLD. By the retirement, after 25 years' service, of Detective-inspector Robert Sagar, the City of London Police Force loses one of its ablest detectives. His absence from the hive of activity in the Old Jewry will be marked, and is already regretted, as Mr. Sagar has for many years been one of the most popular figures in the detective department at the City Police headquarters. The interesting history of his early association with the City of London Police has yet to be written, and it could only be written by one man, and that man Mr. Sagar himself. A Lancashire man by birth, he was educated at Whalley Grammar School, and found himself, as quite a young man, in London, with the aims and aspirations of a medical student. He became attached to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and intended prosecuting his studies there with all the vigour which he subsequently displayed in quite another and surprising direction. He took apartments in Bartholomew Close, in the house of a celebrated City detective named Potts, who seems to have been a first edition of Sherlock Holmes. The mind and imagination of the young medical student became diverted from the study of surgery and medicine to the fascinating problem of criminology, and the varied means which a quick intelligence offered for the detection of crime. Hence it was that, while engaged as a student at St. Bartholomew's, he became imbued with the instincts of a detective, and so successful was he in that direction that he appeared in a great number of prosecutions of criminals at the City Police Courts and at the Old Bailey. Young Sagar's ability attracted the attention of the late Sir James Fraser, who was at that time the Commissioner of City Police, and he called for a special report with respect to the many cases in which the young medical student had been engaged. The report was of so complimentary a character that the Commissioner suggested that Mr. Sagar should join the police force. In the event of his declining to do so, a handsome cheque was ready as payment for his past assistance to the police. Mr. Sagar thereupon resolved to abandon the dull routine of the medical profession in favour of the more exciting, but less remunerative, life of a detective. The circumstances of his joining the police force were, therefore, peculiar, but that is not the only unusual feature associated with it, as Detective-inspector Sagar is the only officer of the City of London Police who has never donned a uniform. He joined the service in January, 1880, as an ordinary constable, and, as usual, was required to undergo a month's probation. After having completed half that time, he was selected by the late Sir James Fraser to make an investigation into a particularly intricate case of forgery, in the task of unravelling which several others had tried and failed. Mr. Sagar at once responded to the call, and proceeded into the country for the purpose of securing his quarry. Fortune favoured him, and he was successful in bringing the forger to justice, a sentence of twenty years' penal servitude being the fate of the man who had so long escaped detection. Mr. Sagar then returned to the City and completed the remainder of the period of probation. In December, 1888, he was promoted to the position of sergeant, there being no vacancy on the detective staff. The title was one of an honorary character, and it was conferred by the Commissioner in recognition of special services rendered. In the following June he was appointed detective-sergeant, and in November, 1890, he was promoted to the post of detective-inspector. Three years later he was made a first-class inspector. It is a matter of some interest to know that, on the occasion of his joining the police force, he was rejected on medical examination, it being supposed that he was suffering from a varicose vein in one leg. There was no doubt that he had received an injury to one of his legs, and it came about in this wise: Before he joined the service he was in the City one day with the late Detective James Egan. He noticed a robbery from a shop in Fore Street, and both men started off in pursuit of the thief, who dashed down into Chapel Street. That thoroughfare was being repaved, and, consequently, they ran along the kerb. Unfortunately, one of the workmen had left a pick projecting over the kerb, and young Sagar, not seeing the obstacle in time to avoid it, had the misfortune to strike his shin against the iron point, the result being that a portion of the cloth of his trousers was driven into the hole caused by the displaced muscle. Nothing daunted, he continued the pursuit, and the thief was ultimately run to earth. The Commissioner of Police was much struck by the exhibition of such tenacity of purpose in so young a man. Ultimately he passed the medical examination. On another occasion Mr. Sagar stopped two well-known thieves in Chiswell Street, and their agitation in answer to his questions convinced him that something was wrong; but he said nothing more and left them. Soon afterwards a boy passed him wheeling a barrow, on which was a large case. From a point of concealment the detective noticed that there was some connection between the boy and the men, the latter lagging behind in order that the boy and the barrow might come nearer to them in the Barbican. Procuring assistance, Sagar followed on their track, and arrested the trio in the Central Meat Market. Soon after they were brought into the police station a message was received from Bishopsgate to the effect that a case of boots had been stolen in broad daylight from Camomile Street. The case, on being opened, was found to contain the stolen property. The foregoing is one of many instances in which Mr. Sagar displayed his smartness. It was, however, in the detection of forgeries and the running to earth of the forgers that he showed his talents. In the great majority of bank note and other forgeries of recent years, he has taken a leading part. In particular he was instrumental in bringing into the dock at the Old Bailey a notorious gang of forgers of the most expert and dangerous type - all of them foreigners. It may be remembered that one of them shot himself in his cell at the Old Bailey after he had been sentenced. Two other clever forgers, a portion of the same gang, received their deserts only a few days ago. Mr. McWilliam, who recently retired from the head of the detective department at Old Jewry, employed Detective-inspector Sagar in making all the confidential inquiries which needed an exhibition of great tact, caution, and that subtle handling of facts and weighing of evidence which can only be possessed by long experience and careful training. On one occasion the Bank of England wanted to transfer three millions in bullion to the Bank of France in Paris. Detective-inspector Sagar was at once instructed to take all the necessary precautions for the safe transit of so huge a sum. He accomplished his mission successfully, and "personally conducted" the last million to Paris. His professional association with the terrible atrocities which were perpetuated some years ago in the East End by the so-styled "Jack-the Ripper" was a very close one. Indeed, Mr. Sagar knows as much about those crimes, which terrified the Metropolis, as any detective in London. He was deputed to represent the City police force in conference with the detective heads of the Metropolitan force nightly at Leman Street Police Station during the period covered by those ghastly murders. Much has been said and written -and even more conjectured - upon the subject of the "Jack-the-Ripper" murders. It has been asserted that the murderer fled to the Continent, where he perpetrated similar hideous crimes; but that is not the case. The police realised, as also did the public, that the crimes were those of a madman, and suspicion fell upon a man, who, without a doubt, was the murderer. Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was, however, placed in a lunatic asylum, and the series of atrocities came to an end. There was a peculiar incident in connection with those tragedies which may have been forgotten. The apron belonging to the woman who was murdered in Mitre Square was thrown under a staircase in a common lodging house in Dorset Street, and someone -presumably the murderer - had written on the wall above it, "The Jewes are not the people that will be blamed for nothing." A police officer engaged in the case, fearing that the writing might lead to an onslaught upon the Jews in the neighbourhood, rubbed the writing from the wall, and all record of the implied accusation was lost; but the fact that such an ambiguous message was left is recorded among the archives at the Guildhall. Detective-inspector Sagar, who has made several journeys abroad for the purpose of securing celebrated criminals, is none the worse for his many adventures. With all the great raids that have been made in recent years on gaming houses and so-called clubs in the City, Mr. Sagar, we may add, has been prominently identified. Into his retirement he carries with him the good wishes of all who enjoy his friendship, and have profited by his clever brain.
Author: Chris Hintzen Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 01:03 pm
Hi Sir Robert, Actually, the way it reads to me is not that Sagar made the statements about the Ripper being a Madman. Rather that it was being reported by the Press that Police believed this, which goes back to Anderson's statements to the press years earlier. It seems to me that it goes from stating, Sagar worked together with the Metropolitan as a liason for the City Police, and then goes on to give out the theories about what happened to the Ripper.(Thus the placement of the phrase, 'and even more conjectured'.) Not that Sagar himself states that there was an actual indentification made. Regards, Chris H.
Author: David Radka Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 01:03 pm
Mr. Tabord has a great post, above. I agree with what he says at first look, and think it a good basis for further discussion on this thread. Sir Robert's huge following post I haven't gotten to yet--am very busy till the end of the month. Will comment later. David
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 04:22 pm
Sometimes I think my posts are utterly ignored. Ah well. that's cool. Mr. Tabord--There are plenty of shades of belief expressed above. We see everything from Anderson lied, to Anderson knew, to Anderson only thought he knew, to Anderson might well have known, to Anderson was being evasive on purpose. I'm all in favor of any explantion for Anderson & or Swanson's statements, and have already posed several questions above, but have received no reply. Let me try again. 1. The Seaside Home opened in March, 1890. Do we therefore eliminate all suspects who died before that date? Does this not rule Kaminski, Cohen out of the equation? 2. Anderson stated that the witness unhesitantingly identified the suspect. knowing once again that the Seaside Home wasn't open until 1890, how do we explain this, considering the witnesses we know about had brief sightings some 1 1/2 years in the past? 3. How do we explain the fact that Macnaghten, who was Anderson's deputy, and the Chief Constable in 1890, didn't know about this "absolute" identification of Jack the Ripper, but Swanson did? Finally, the big one. If we must delve into the grey, what is the methodology, or as Mr. Radka would have it, the epistemology, for deciding which statements of Anderson's to believe or to disbelieve? Do we believe Anderson when he talks abou the "non-detection of Jack the Ripper" [1908] or when he talks about the Ripper case not being among "unsolved"? [1910]? Seems like a problem to me. Many thanks for any responses from anyone. RJP
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Wednesday, 29 January 2003 - 04:31 pm
Hey Chris! Actually, it gets even better, in terms of obfuscation. One of the things I love most about this mystery is that every time you think you are on solid ground, and drill down, you realize you don't know what you thought you know....However, I do believe that you can throw Sagar on the pile of clues that Anderson indeed "thought he knew" Courtesy of the A-Z as well as Stewart's Ultimate Companion and the Casebook: "Henry Smith (Commissoner City Police 1890-1901) wrote "A better or more intelligent officer than Robert Sagar I never had under my command." "Reynolds News" (15 September 1946) printed an extract from Sagar's unpublished, and now untraced, memoirs. Sagar wrote that "We had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butcher's Row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities." Although there are some differences this could possibly be referring to Swanson's suspect Kosminski. If this is the case it is significant because it suggests that the City Police, to which Sagar belonged, and the Metropolitan Police, to which Swanson belonged, were following similar lines of inquiry. While Sagar was probably aware of Robert Anderson's statements about the ripper being "caged in an asylum" etc he would not have known about the Swanson Marginalia which did not come to light until some 40 years after the above extract was published. As somebody who had studied medicine, even if only briefly, and was involved in investigating the murders it would have been interesting to have known Sagar's opinions on the amount of skill displayed by the killer. Source: Begg, Fido, and Skinner. The Jack the Ripper A-Z. "
Author: Harry Mann Thursday, 30 January 2003 - 03:43 am
It is the lack of just two or three important details,which Anderson ,even years afterwards, should have remembered and included,that is significant. He was after all,referring to a series of terrible crimes,the details of which must have been implanted on the minds of all those officers taking part,and of which he alone seemed to have the solution. A witness,a suspect and a place of identification.Not much to include if one wished to be believed,and I deduce from the wording of his statements,that he claimed to know all three. Whether he knew the truth is open to one's beliefs,that he did not divulge the truth is plain to see.
Author: Ivor Edwards Friday, 31 January 2003 - 02:30 am
Hi Harry, What I find amazing is the statement that the murders stopped after the identification took place.Yet the ID took place about 18 months after the Kelly murder.
Author: Harry Mann Friday, 31 January 2003 - 04:26 am
Welcome back Ivor, There is much to disbelieve concerning the identity question,one of which you have outlined above. I do not believe ,given the circumstances,that 'lying' is the wrong word to use,and unless strong evidence surfaces to support Anderson's claims,it will remain my opinion that he did indeed lie.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 31 January 2003 - 09:22 am
If you don't find Sir Robert a scary fellow, then you aren't paying attention. And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point. For I must say at once that "undiscovered murders" are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not within that catagory. And if the Police here had powers such as the French police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice."¹ Note the words "result" and "diagnosis." What Anderson is obviously admitting here is that the Jewish Pole was not a contemporary suspect. He was not brought to justice. Only Anderson's "diagnosis" proved correct: ie., after-the-fact, "the result" was shown to be correct, the murderer proved to be a Polish Jew, ie., Aaron Kosminski. What are we to make of this? Clearly, the suspicions against Kosminski came later. In fact, they came in 1891. The answer to the whole puzzle is in Griffiths. Major Griffiths gives the best clue to what was going on with Aaron Kosminksi, as he must have heard the tale many times from Anderson and/or Macnaghten. "Concerning two of them [Kosminski, Ostrog] the case was weak, although it was based on certain colourable facts. One was a Polish Jew, a known lunatic, who was at large in the district of Whitechapel at the time of the murder, and who having afterwards developed homicidal tendencies, was confined in an asylum. This man was said to resemble the murderer by the one person who got of glimpse of him--the police-constable in Mitre Court.' This is Anderson, hook, line, and sinker. It fits perfectly with what Anderson was saying above, and with what we know about Aaron Kosminski. He was at large at the time of the murders, a babbling lunatic. As Stewart Evans suggests elsewhere, his name almost certainly would have made a police list during the house to house inquiries. Kosminski "afterwards developed homocidal tendencies"... When Kosminski was committed to the asylum in February, 1891, the witness at the certification, Jacob Cohen, told how he had 'picked up a knife and threatened the life of his sister[in law]." This is what set the wheels in motion. Anderson now had closure. The low-class Jews [ugly phrase] were 'protecting their own,' but now even they couldn't handle Kosminski. It took a two-year wait, but Sir Robert now had what he wanted. A 'homicidal' Jewish Pole from the center of Whitechapel that looked like the man seen in Mitre Square. As the years rolled by, Anderson became more & more certain that he had the right fellow. Ah, if only Sir Robert could have done what he wanted to do! Only if he had had the advantages of the French Police, and had been able to round up anyone regardless of evidence and put lead weights on their chest until they confessed! Ah, then things would have been different!! ¹"Not so in such countries where the police are armed with large despotic powers which enable them to seize a criminal}without any evidence at all and build up a case against them at leisure, extracting the needed proofs, it may be, from their own unwilling lips.".... Unfortunately for the history books, Sir Robert had the wrong man. R.J.P.
Author: Sir Robert Anderson Friday, 31 January 2003 - 11:21 am
Apart from a general unity of belief that Anderson�s conclusion about the Insane Polish Jew was wrong, which I share, the anti-Anderson argument seems in total disarray. It is variously argued that Anderson lied about the identification, that he didn�t lie but confused it with some other identification, or that he didn�t lie but exaggerated the importance of the ID in old age. Questions go unaddressed. For example, if Anderson lied, presumably he also lied to Swanson, and Swanson, who would have known absolutely nothing about the identification even though he had overall charge of the Ripper investigation, nevertheless bought the tale hook, line and sinker, and didn�t demur from what Anderson said even in writings intended for his own eyes. Or was it Swanson who lied? Stewart has written how Anderson wouldn�t have had anything to do with the identification and could have received the information from Swanson, so does this mean that Swanson lied? Or were they both lied to by someone else? But if they didn�t invent the identification from whole cloth then there was something that happened. They didn�t lie. And in some cases the evidence argues against Cohen being the suspect, but not Kosminski (the R. Harding Davis quote is an example � although even here there is a question left unaddressed: was Anderson acknowledging that the Ripper hadn�t been caught or was he simply saying that on viewing the geography of the area it was easier to understand why the murderer hadn�t been apprehended in the act or when going to or coming from a murder?) Sir Robert
Author: David Radka Friday, 31 January 2003 - 12:30 pm
"And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point. For I must say at once that "undiscovered murders" are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not within that catagory. And if the Police here had powers such as the French police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice."1 Note the words "result" and "diagnosis." What Anderson is obviously admitting here is that the Jewish Pole was not a contemporary suspect. He was not brought to justice. Only Anderson's "diagnosis" proved correct: ie., after-the-fact, "the result" was shown to be correct, the murderer proved to be a Polish Jew, ie., Aaron Kosminski." I believe what Anderson meant concerning "result" and "diagnosis" is different from RJ's, as follows: When Anderson took his Scandinavian vacation, the Met organized some serious house-to-house searches for the murderer. They learned various things concerning the local Polish Jewish population from these searches. The information was recorded on the scene in notebooks, which were then transferred to Swanson. Upon his return, Anderson was put into full responsibility for the case by Matthews. Anderson then turned to Swanson for the straightest possible skinny update. Swanson told him about the Polish Jews referring to the notebooks. At THIS point Anderson makes the "diagnosis." This is late August 1888. The diagnosis is that whoever is committing the crimes, he must be a Polish Jew. In other words, Anderson makes a preliminary conclusion in favor of the notebooks and Swanson. In 1890 Kosminski comes along as suspect, a Polish Jew. Someone identifies him. THIS is the "result." David
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord Friday, 31 January 2003 - 01:18 pm
Hi RJP The difficulty I have is not with those who have shades of grey! It is the two extreme positions I take issue with, a) that Anderson's statements are 100% factual or b) that Anderson and Swanson completely made it up. To take your points. 1) If the identification took place at the seaside home we think it did, than we should rule out all suspects before it opened. But did it? Do we know what was meant by the seaside home? Alternative suggestions have been put forward. 2) Answer is the same as point 1. 3) Dunno. But we definitely don't know all McNaughten knew, and in his memorandum he is trying to refute someone else's suggestion rather than necessarily to prove his own. Methodology is simple - believe what can be corroborated, doubt all else. And since this does not leave is with sufficient information (apparently) to solve the crime, speculation (that does not contradict any known facts) is all that remains, for those of us with insufficient time to do original research. My point was that evaluating scenarios that do not assume total fabrication on behalf of Anderson but rather exaggeration, in line with his character as apparently revealed by some of his other statements, might shed some light on what was actually happening. And what about Swanson - what was his motive for lying? It is interesting that he exonerates the 'known' Kosminski, if his understanding about the suspect's death is correct - not something you'd make a mistake about, surely. Regards Pete
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 31 January 2003 - 03:42 pm
David--Late August 1888? You're talking about before the murder of Nichols? This is a misprint, no? In my not-so-humble opinion, Anderson's "diagnosis" was the direct result of the failure of the house to house search to give up Mr. Apron. One can see it right there in black and white, in Anderson's memo to the Home Office on October 23, 1888. [Evans & Skinner's Sourcebook, p. 134]. The search failed to yield, in Anderson's own words, "the slightest clue of any kind." He mulled this over, and came to one conclusion. And it was an unpleasant one. "It is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile Justice." From then on, he was looking for a low-class Jew, and was suspicious as hell of any Jewish witness. Kosminski surfaced in 1890-1891, and Anderson then "had his man." Only Kosminski being nailed in 1891 explains Anderson's odd vacillation between the "non-detection" of Jack the Ripper [ie., in 1888-1889] and the case being "solved" [ie., after the fact] in 1891. Sir Robert--The arguments against Anderson are not in any sort of disarray. They are well formed and scholarly objections, and they have not been addressed. The Anderson theories are all over the field--from Cohen to Kaminsky to Kosminski to Pizer and back again. One hunts such game with a shotgun. In fact, in contributing to this thread, I feel like I'm wrestling with Proteus. Peter--Macnaghten is refuting the Anderson theory [as is Griffiths] after having heard it. How could they know about it unless they had heard it? Only if one is going to argue conspiracy theory, or a renegade act on Anderson or Swanson's part, [I suspect that Messers. Russo and Radka might be toying with this] there is no getting around the fact that Anderson's deputy Macnaghten would have known about the identification. Evidently, he was far from impressed by it. David Cohen as Leather Apron is a jolly fun theory, but the general consensus is that it died when the Swanson marginalia was found. Is that my opinion? No. That's straight out of the A-Z. Nor do any of Anderson's statements 'jive' with Cohen having been identified in late 1888/early 1889. I believe---and I have no proof of this whatsoever ----that two witnesses gave rather vague identifications of Aaron Kosminski in 1891. They became only slightly garbled; the main problem is in reading Anderson & Swanson we are jumping to conclusions about what they meant. One was the PC, which took place at the Seaside Home. He thought the man looked somewhat like the bloke in Mitre Square, hence Macnaghten's statements. The other was Lawende who was being used as a police witness. But he was completely unsure of the identification, as he naturally would be after 1 1/2 years, and Anderson jumped to the conclusion that he was protecting his own. Fire when ready.