|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 21, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Policemen... What did they know?:
Policemen: What did they know? Part 3:
Archive through June 21, 2000
Author: Chas Gilbert
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 02:50 pm |        | Mr. Fido and Mr. Begg are still avoiding the important new material on Anderson shown to us by Nick Connell, Stewart Evans and Melvin Harris. They've shown that the maniac/asylum idea was well known in 1895 but was never recognised as more than a plausible theory by the people trusted to know about it. For me and I'm certain many others, that early attitude counts as conclusive and overpowers the later dogmas trotted out in retirement.
The conclusions of that television panel of 1988 don't count for much, they didn't have all the facts we now know. And how many cases did they have on record of wandering lunatics being identified as successful serial killers? How many of those refer to England in the late nineteenth century? I'd guess none. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 19 June 2000 - 10:25 pm | | Martin
As a rule we add names to the suspect list based on something tangeable.
1) Was seen in the vicinity of one of the crimes.
2) Was known to have a relationship with one of the victims.
3) Fits a published description of the suspect.
4) Displayed negative opinions about the class of victim.
5) Was known to have experience with a knife or related skill.
6) Was seen with the murder weapon or suspicious stains on his person.
......the list could go on and on.
Why do we even entertain David Cohen?
"age given as 23"
"he spoke little but Yiddish"
"he had committed no crime"
"unable to care for himself"
"occupation listed as tailor"
"Was a Polish-Jew"
Martin suggests Cohen might be Nathan Kaminsky
"a 23 year old"
"never been a pauper lunatic"
"never committed to an asylum"
"he had committed no crime"
"Was a Polish-Jew"
We have nothing in the above to implicate either of those names in the murders. And the general points listed will have fit hundreds of similar 23yr old young men.
On page 216 a suggestion is made that Kaminsky (Leather Apron) may have been the attacker of Ada Wilson. And that the description of the man who attacked Ada was similar enough to one of the clients who was last seen with Chapman, Stride & Eddowes.
Ada Wilson's attacker was not described as 23, actually 'about 30' and he demanded money, Cohen (Kaminsky) spoke little but Yiddish.
I do not consider the last person seen with Chapman as fitting the description of Lawende's man, nor fitting anyone seen with Stride.
Martin 'assumes' Kaminsky was Leather Apron while the rest of the world(?) aknowledges Pizer as Leather Apron. At least Pizer admitted it, but then Martin try's to tell us "what Pizer meant was.....".
Honestly Martin, how can you try to tell us what Pizer meant?.
Your only connection to Jack through Kaminsky is to label him as 'Leather Apron'..without that, you have no connection at all.
Kaminsky &/or Cohen were nobody's, even if they were the same person, there are no grounds whatsoever for putting them on the suspect list.
Martin, out of 240 pages (Crimes, Detection & Death) you give us 52 lines on your suspect, Cohen. You give us 2 1/2 pages on Nathan Kaminsky, but a sizable portion is devoted to debunking Kosminsky.
Otherwise the book reads very well as a summary of the murders.
This poste is not intended to be an attack on Martin in any way, I am giving a summary of what I see as the rest of the case that Martin never mentioned in his Kosminsky/Cohen poste above. In comparing the two it seems Cohen is a viable suspect until you step back and take a second look....."wait a minute, what do we actually know about this guy?"
In a word, nothing.
No real name
No next of kin
No known address
.....saying David Cohen was the murderer is not unlike labelling Jack the Ripper as the killer.....neither actually existed.
A supposition is made to connect Kaminsky with Leather Apron.
Add supposition #2, K'something'sky is given as the police suspect, therefore Kaminsky is Leather Apron, is the police suspect.
Add supposition #3, Kamin sounds like Cohen, ergo Cohen is Kaminsky, is Leather Apron, is the police suspect.
Being incarcerated 'at the right time' is as weak a case as dying 'at the right time'.
Dont get me wrong, I am far from a Kosminsky supporter, but we have taken Paul to task in the past over Kosminsky.
I like your book, but I do not agree with your suggestion of a suspect.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 12:59 am | | FLIES IN AMBER
Mr Gilbert has made the point succinctly. In 1895 Anderson's friend and confidant, Major Griffiths, heard from Anderson himself details of the man-in-an-asylum explanation. And friend Griffiths then gave an outline of those ideas, but categorised them as nothing but a "plausible theory". And he did this in an article that would, as a matter of courtesy, have been shown to both Anderson and Macnaghten BEFORE publication. Furthermore, after publication his conclusions were never challenged by anyone, at anytime. This, in itself, tells us that Anderson had not said "We know for certain who the Ripper was. We have no doubts on this score. Someone saw the killer. We had his unambiguous identification. The fiend is now safe behind asylum bars" Had Anderson been able to talk about such certainties in 1895 then Griffiths would have reported in a very different fahion. And so would Macnaghten. But they did not take Anderson seriously, because he had no firm case to argue. No proof of anything conclusive. Just a theory.
We now have it said that Swanson was perhaps confused in his later years. Well, the same can be said of Anderson. In his remarks on the Luard case (Sept 1st 1908) he got the name of the Home Secretary wrong, and spoke of a clue in the shape of a clay pipe, being smashed in a fireplace by a doctor. But the only murder indoors was that of Kelly. And the pipe on Kelly's mantlepiece was never shattered and was never a clue, since it was identified by Barnett as his property. There was a broken pipe in a later case of murder, but it was not associated with a Ripper victim, and not discovered in a room. It was found near the Alice McKenzie's body on July 17 1889.
But all this seems lost on the twin theorists. Flies in amber? Yes sir! |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 03:10 am | | To begin with, my term 'shoehorn' was unfortunate but at the time I couldn't think of anything else so compact and illustrative. I simply meant that we have a detail which fits Aaron Kosminski but does no fit 'David Cohen' without words being interpreted to make the detail fit. But - as I pointed out - these details don't matter because according to the 'confusion hypothesis' the men were mixed up and some details pertain to Cohen and some to Aaron Kosminski and vice versa.
My position re Kosminski/Cohen is really very simple and doesn't require all this wordage. Anderson makes a number of statements about a suspect and Swanson identified that suspect as 'Kosminski'. 'Kosminski' has been identified as Aaron Kosminski and Aaron Kosminski fits all the details provided by Anderson and Swanson (except the matter of death). What reason is there to therefore suppose that Aaron Kosminski was not Anderson's suspect?
Since I disagree with Martin's interpretation of the medical records, as far as I am concerned Cohen does not enter the frame and I am not in conflict with Martin other than with his interpretation of the medical records. What we agree on is that a theory advanced by the head of the C.I.D. and apparently tacitly endorsed by the man who had overall authority for the investigation deserves priority of research.
Chas Gilbert/Melvin Harris:- I have no problem whatever with the claim that what was a theory in 1895 became a fact in later years. But without a trial and a conviction then a theory was never and could never have officially been more than a theory. But does this mean they didn't think their theory was correct? Does it mean their theory wasn't a good one? Does it mean they weren't right? Of course it doesn't. And anyone who wishes to state otherwise will have to present the evidence on which the theory was based so that we can make a proper assessment of it. We can't do that because we don't have it and have no real idea what it was. And that, regrettably, is what seems lost on Mr. Harris! Furthermore, we don't know that Major Griffiths or Littelchild or Macnaghten or anyone else knew in detail what the evidence was either.
Jon:- the problem with some of the things you have written is that they don't take fully into account the genesis of Martin's theory. You see, initially Martin's examination of the asylum records did not extend until 1892 and he missed finding Aaron Kosminski. Concluding - quite rightly in my opinion - that Anderson would not have lied, he assumed that the suspect would be in the asylum records under another name. During his research he'd already come across Nathan Kaminsky and David Cohen and had developed a theory. He then found Aaron Kosminski. But Martin's assessment of Aaron Kosminski's medical records was that Aaron Kosminski could not have been Jack the Ripper and therefore could not have been Anderson's suspect. He therefore rejected Aaron Kosminski and concluded that 'David Cohen' was the most likely asylum inmate to be Anderson's suspect. He further concluded that the authorities had confused two Jewish suspects, Kosminski and Cohen, thus explaining how some details applied to Kosminski (the 'utterly unmentionable vices' for example) and some to Cohen (dying soon after admission), and he invented a scenario to illustrate how the confusion could have happened. The Kaminsky, Leather Apron, Pizer thinking fits within that confusion hypothesis. What we actually have from Martin is a violent and apparently Ripper-like suspect who was picked up by the police, apparently in a raid on a brothel, and whose committal coincided with the murder of the last canonical victim and could explain the sudden cessation of the crimes. It a good enough reason on its own for advancing 'David Cohen' as a suspect. But if one allows that the accounts given by Anderson and Swanson indicate confusion, then the Cohen theory takes on a little more weight. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 09:04 am | | Jon -
Your bases for suspicion are perfectly valid if
we have a range of suspects about whom we can
start with such information. For this reason I
have never dismissed the Barnettian theory as
unhistorical, even though I find the motive for
the earlier murders deeply implausible and, (like
you, I believe) I think the police investigation
was good enough that they probably would have
found evidence if Barnett was guilty. But anybody
may reasonably disagree with the latter point - a
lot of contemporary journalists certainly did. And
the human mind is odd enough that the
extraordinary alleged motive must remain a bare
possibility. Likewise, though I don’t care much
for A.P. Wolf’s book with its unnecessary sniping
at Colin Wilson, I don’t dismiss the possibility
that Kidney killed Stride.
The data other than relationships that you raise,
however, have usually been dragged in as support
for suspects who are really being identified on
other grounds: Sir William Gull is said by unknown
sources to have been seen around Whitechapel;
somebody looking like Druitt/Prince Eddie may have
been seen by Sgt White; J.K.Stephen wrote
misogynistic verses; Gull, Donston and possibly
Ostrog were skilled with the knife. The
‘bloodstained’ people known to me (like the man
with bloody cuffs who looked like G.R.Sims and was
seen by a coffe-stall holder) have never been
identified. In fact, all suspects except the
victims’ former lovers and the police suspects are
dragged into the case on the basis of desperately
inadequate and unreliable sources, the obvious
worst being Stephen, pulled in by a man who knew
terribly little about the case because he thought
he ought to propose a new suspect to replace the
one he was conclusively dismissing!
The historian is bound to look FIRST at the
calibre of the sources, and then see if anything
can be established about those who seem most
reliable. This is what Paul and I did
independently, and no one else has given evidence
of having done. And we came to exactly the same
conclusion.
Your objections to my book are by and large well
founded. I would only add to Paul’s defence that
your reference to Annie Chapman shows that you are
using the original hardback edition. (And she
should, ideed, never have appeared in that list of
sightings). That book was standing in print when
the publishers sent me the proofs and invited me
to add an appendix. It originally carried a
leisurely last chapter clearly (I hope) outlining
the Cohen/Kaminsky/Leather Apron case, and stating
that there was NO Kosminsky. But on looking at the
Colney Hatch Admissions and Discharge book for an
Appendix intended to add anythng that could be
found to the lamentably slim data on Cohen, I
found I was wrong. Kosminski went to the asylum
too late for my original search which I still feel
covered the period necessary for the Ripper to be
incarcerated. But he existed. I called the
publishers who said I could have a week to make
alterations, and I would have to pay for the
resetting (which I did). I had to wait 24 hours
before the GL Archives could get me the relevant
Case Book (and they initially sent up the wrong
one! Kindly recognising my horror, they
immediately started a renewed search of the stacks
and brought me the right one without a further 24
hour delay!) So you are looking at a chapter which
had to be written without revision in a week,
incorporating absolutely new evidence which had
just hit me like a bombshell, and I’m sure you’re
right to feel I gave it too much weight. If I’d
thought kosminski cod be either Anderson’s suspect
orthe ripper it would have had even more weight,
of course. But I could anticipate tha validity of
Paul’s type of reaction (even though we had never
met or corresponded at that time) and so explained
rather carefully why I had not followed my own
original logic to the bitter end.
In the matter of Pizer/ Leather Apron and the
extensive matter in the earlier part of the book,
may I boast that Joe Gaute, Richard
Whittington-Egan and ‘Alexander Kelly’ were among
those who wrote complimenting me on the amount of
really new and valid material I had discovered in
work that had been done to death, and that the
Pizer/Leather Apron confusion and the Goulston
Street graffito were specifically mentioned as
being among the former unrecognised problems I had
now resolved. (Kelly later remarked in his revised
Bibliography, that my book had a remarkably short
innings as the best ever written on the case,
since Paul Begg’s, with the advantage of
everything I knew and a great deal more work,
especially on the victims, that he had done
himself, soon superceded it. I might add that even
then, Don Rumbelow’s remained, as I think it still
does, far the best introductory overview for
newcomers). Of course, like you I found Pizer’s
‘yes’ a huge stumbling-block. But I’d been
examining the inquest to see why the prostitutes
(as every book at that time claimed) DECLINED to
identify him. And I not only found that they
didn’t and were never asked, I found that
everything else, including Pizer’s, Thick’s and
the Mulberry Street residents’ statements to the
press and Pizer’s outburst in court, pointed to
the fact that he was not Leather Apron. I’ve never
dared to go the distance of suggesting abbreviated
court reporting - (we have only newspapers, not a
transcript) - but bear in mind the possibility
that Baxter asked something more like “Are you
John Pizer, Leather Apron” or “known as Leather
Apron” to get the answer “Yes”. I can’t really
explain with any certainty why Pizer apparently
said once that he was Leather Apron. I can only
note the fact that on all other occasions, he and
everyone else except Violenia, Thick and Helson,
denied it.
A last point about Swanson and ‘confusion’. I
have no evidence at all that Swanson was
geriatrically confused, and this is denied by his
grandson. I’m not sure whether you meant to imply
this or not. I think that at some point Swanson
and Anderson, and maybe others, mistakenly thought
that a City police reference to Kosminsky was a
reference to the man Anderson knew to have been
identified. I think that Swanson may or may not
have mistakenly thought this identification took
place at the Seaside Home and before the suspect’s
incarceration. Since Anderson said it took place
after (and does not imply that it took place
outside the asylum) I think they may well have
been describing two different identification
exercises. In any case, if Swanson was right that
they let an identified suspect go back on the
streets after positive identification, I think the
officers concerned were deeply irresponsible, and
if Anderson believed in an ID attempt made as late
as 1891 - (and such an ID might easily have
happened: we understand from the press that one
took place in 1895) - he was a fool. I don’t think
the press account suggests that Swanson endorsed
or approved the attempt to ID Grant as the Ripper
in 1895, and I see no reason to believe that
Anderson would have endorsed or approved any
attempt to ID Kosminsky in 1891. But his seniority
and the outside evidence of his general good sense
(professionally, that is: I think Anderson was
extravagant to a degree in his political and
religious opinions, though always - indeed,
extravagantly - rational in explainng them)
doesn’t mean he would necessarily have stopped the
attempt.
Nevertheless, I have always said Anderson might
have been mistaken. I just haven’t come across any
persuasive evidence to suggest that he was. The
efforts made to pull fragmentary observations in
this direction nearly always come from people with
an axe to grind in the form of their own preferred
suspects: people who, if they’re intelligent, are
devoting time to eliminating Anderson and Swanson
that they wouldn’t dream of devoting to, say,
Stephen or Donston because Anderson and Swanson
are transparently serious historical witnesses and
a complete road block to most other theories.
(Not, of course, Tumblety or Druitt).
And finally, both ‘being incarcerated at the
right time’ AND ‘dying at the right time’ are not
merely good but absolutely necessary evidence in a
case where the only cast iron clues surviving are
that the murderer travelled east from Mitre Square
toward Goulston Street, and the murders stopped on
a given date. The third possibility is that he
left the district at the right time, in which case
we should see similar murders starting in a new
location: something which
Chapmanite/Klosowski-ites rather desperately try
to identify with the single murder of ‘Old
Shakespeare’ some years later.
And on to Major Griffith. Oh, dear. I hoped we
might get something new. (I’m sorry a browser bug
has so far prevented me from seeing Mr Gilbert’s
posting to know wheher it does bring a new slant
to the material). Let me draw attention to Melvin
Harris’s rather characteristic method of setting
up an assumption, treating it as a fact, building
on it, and treating his edifice as a further fact.
He makes of Griffith a ‘friend and confidant’ who
was ‘given details’. What is the evidence that
Major Griffith was anything more than an
acquaintance who was given the sketchy outline he
reproduces? There is no reason on earth to imagine
that Griffith showed his ms to Anderson before
publishing, and every reason to imagine that
Anderson would have hit the roof if he heard his
belief described as ‘a plausible theory’. Anderson
was opinionated to a degree that makes Melvin,
Paul and me look like models of reasoned
wilingness to hear and ingest opposing arguments.
Melvin, however, proceeds to say that
‘Macnaghten... did not take Anderson seriously
because he had no firm case to argue.’
Macnaghten?? The man who made gross errors about
Druitt, to whom he gave long and serious
consideration, and at least one error about
Kosminski, is now held up as a hypothetical
reliable corrective to Anderson? Despite
Anderson’s slips of memory about old cases in his
old age - (something to which I have drawn
attention myself elsewhere) - he remains a man
whose autobiographical claims have held up
wherever we can test them. He is now shown to have
held his belief about the Ripper as early as 1895
rathe than the 1901 I noted earlier. And Melvin’s
response is to try to juggle the belief into a
‘theory’, and then talk of ‘theory’ in a way
reminiscent of christian creationists trying to
dismiss evolution. He should be reminded that a
theory that fits the known facts is accepted as
probable truth until either new and conflicting
facts emerge, or a theory that fits them better is
proposed. We have warned in the past that his
dismissal of other people’s work needs to be
treated with caution, as he tends to state as fact
things that have not been proved.
And finally a small new suggestion. Much of the
best and most serious work on the case for some
years has related to police approaches. We know
that the coppers on the ground tended to the
‘doctor’ theory, and Abberline supported them to
the extent that he believed in the exploded
‘burking’ motive. Should we not also now conclude
that the police at the top were heavily committed
to the ‘lunatic’ theory? Given that Druitt
committed suicide leaving a note that specifically
said he thought he was losing his reason like his
mother, and Tumblety had been arested for a
homosexual offence which many straight people at
the time would have thought a form of insanity,
and that Abberline was sent to look for the insane
medical student, I think we should keep in our
minds as part of our thinking that the top brass
were probably diinclined to give the fillest
consideration to suspects who were not obviously
mad. Yes, I know this flies on the face of my own
theorising, but this debate includes a lot of
people like Jon who are interested in looking for
the truth and want all serious possibilities put
forward: not just a lot of ego-brandishing.
Martin Fido |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 10:49 am | | | Suppose that McNaughten's witness was himself Jack the Ripper, trying to deflect interest in himself by directing it toward Kosminski. His residency at the Seaside Home would explain the sudden cessation of the murders as he had in some way become disabled. It is certain that he was at least at the scene of one of the killings or he would not have been accorded the status of witness. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 11:09 am | | Hi Diana
Who do you mean by 'McNaghten's witness'?
Paul |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 12:39 pm | | Martin,
There are several points in your above lengthy post with which I would disagree. Not wishing to become embroiled in a lengthy exposition myself, may I point out one factual error which should be quickly addressed.
You state, "What is the evidence that Major Griffith (sic) was anything more than an acquaintance..."
Major Griffiths, in fact, was an old friend of Anderson's, and their careers certainly overlapped in the period 1887-1888 when Anderson was Secretary to the Prison Commissioners and Griffiths was H.M. Inspector of Prisons.
For confirmation of their status as friends we need look no further than Anderson's own book The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910, page 234, "My friend, the late Major Arthur Griffiths, used to tell how, when he was in charge of one of our convict-prisons, he mislaid the key of the office safe one day..." |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 01:59 pm | | PROOFS ABSENT
Paul Begg's points about Anderson's 'plausible theory' of 1895 still avoid the real issue. If it was just a theory at that time, then it was still no more than a theory in 1910. Yet Anderson tried to claim otherwise. He used language that was logically absurd and a disgrace to anyone with legal training when he wrote "...the only person who ever saw the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him..." It is begging the question to assert that ANYONE saw the murderer for certain. There were people who said they saw a man, or men, near murder sites, at certain times. And that is all that can be said, with certainty. But not one of these sightings allowed anyone to claim that the killer had been seen beyond doubt. And where doubts exist, no one, not even Anderson, is entitled to brand any suspect "the murderer" on the strength of a mere sighting.
Begg, naturally, falls back on the argument that those who dispute the rightness of Anderson's theory "...will have to present the evidence on which the theory was based..." this is yet another illogical stance. The evidence we need is there, in print in Anderson's own words. At no point does he cite any proofs that the Polish Jew was tied in with the killings other than by raw suspicion and the claimed identification. If there had been anything evidential, providing a positive and unchallengeable link between the Jew and any one of the victims, then Anderson was free to say so, and free to go into every detail, short of supplying names. But he did not do this. His whole case rests on the shaky grounds that the police had concluded that the killer would be found among "certain low-class Polish Jews...And the results proved that our diagnosis was right on every point." The so-called identification was, in his view, the clincher.
The truth is that Anderson and Swanson were creatures of their time. The knew precious little about the complexities of the minds of sexual-serial murderers. So they were hooked on the popular illusions of that epoch and imagined that they were looking for someone who was a homicidal maniac and probably not British! Anderson's suspect fitted into that frame. Despite this, what he had to say to Griffiths and Macnaghten, carried little weight with them. They were able to talk with him at any length they chose. They were able to ask searching questions. And Anderson failed to convince them. So much so, that when it came to his book Griffiths dropped all mention of Anderson's specific ideas on the Ripper, and his text recorded that the case was unsolved.
That which carried little weight in 1895 became inflated and distorted in time. But what Anderson came to say in later years carries no weight at all. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 04:14 pm | | MORE TO DEPLORE!
A short time ago I forecast that if Fido was allowed to ramble on long enough, then his vanity would trip him up. And sure enough it has. I described Major Griffiths as a friend and confidant of Anderson. This was both accurate and relevant. I further stated that out of courtesy he would have shown his 'Windsor Magazine' article to both Anderson and his other friend Macnaghten BEFORE publication. This was promptly ridiculed by Fido, who poses as an authority on Anderson. He sneered "Where is the evidence that Major Griffiths was anything more than an acquaintance who was given the sketchy outline he reproduces? There is no reason to imagine that he would have showed his ms to Anderson before publishing, and every reason to imagine that Anderson would have hit the roof if he had heard his belief described as 'a plausible theory.'"
Alas for vanity and impetuous statements. Griffiths and Anderson had been friends for years, this is a matter of record not surmise. His important article would have been common knowledge within the police forces in a very short time. But no one came forward to dispute anything he wrote. And that is another fact. His later action in dropping Anderson's theory from his book tells us just what the Major thought of his friend's theory. That is just another discernable fact.
Perhaps Fido should now go into a retreat and clear up some of the other messes he has created in the past. It might be good for his hat size. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 04:42 pm | | I'm sure all readers will have little
difficulty in perceiving the difference between
Stewart Evans' useful answer to my (admittedly
partly rhetorical) question 'What is the
evidence...?' and Melvin Harris's personal
outburst purporting to do the same thing. Thank
you Stewart: I haven't re-read Anderson's memoirs
for ages, and I take your point. I still
personally doubt whether Anderson told Griffith
much more than Griffith reported, and have no real
doubt at all that Anderson would never have
agreed that any of his opinions were merely
'plausible theory'. Of course he wouldn't have
challenged an article which was obviously written
in his defence. He may have been touchy, but he
wasn't completely ungracious.
And so (sigh!) to Mr Harris. More speculative
assumptions about Griffith's Windsor Magazine
piece being widely read and commented on in
Scotland Yard. An ignorance of Anderson's
character which assumes he would meekly fall
silent on hearing his beliefs undervalued, (or
correctly described as 'mere theory') and then
later harden them into an overstated conviction.
An astonishing continuing assumption that
Macnaghten, who believed Kosminsky went into the
asylum in or about March 1889, knew the full
details and could have put Griffith or anybody
else straight. (Unless a definite third Jew from
Whitechapel is now being put forward. The only one
to go into the asylum around the time Macnaghten
suggests was a very unpromising cigar merchant who
attacked his wife.) An apparent unawareness of all
the indications of what relations between Anderson
and Macnaghten really were.
But I really needn't go on. Compare the tone
of Melvin's and Stewart's postings, and make your
own mind up as to whether Melvin's real aim is to
establish the truth by examining other people's
arguments, or to denigrate them.
Martin Fido |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 04:51 pm | | Ashling -
The posting from Stewart Evans reminds me of
an important point I forgot to make for you.
Walter Dew stated in his generally very reliable
memoirs that Inspector Moore was in charge of the
case, and Abberline was very important in it
because of his knowledge of Whitechapel. I
followed Dew in asserting this, and misled my
co-authors on the A-Z into the same pitfall. We
were all rather puzzled by a memo on the files in
which Moore apologises for possibly have
trespassed on Abberine's sphere of responsibility.
Stewart's trawl through the files has now
established that Moore was promoted after
Abberline, and so we may assume that Dew was wrong
about their relative standing. I suspect - Stewart
may correct me - that Moore ran liaison between
Scotland Yard and Leman Street, so that Dew
assumed he was giving orders that he was actually
transmitting. (This is, of course, only a guess).
The boundary Moore acknowledges between
himself and Abberline may, however, cast more
light on Abberline's statement that he hadn't seen
the autopsy report on Chapman. He, too, may have
had boundaries beyond which Swanson decided what
should be made known and to whom.
All good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 05:32 pm | | Hi Chas Gilbert
- Browser working again, (gave it a dose of
Norton Utilities and threw away an AOL
Disconnecting Log with broken forks, whatever that
means), so I've read your posting. Nothing really
to add to what Paul and I have said about the
1895 'theory' positio, except to reiterate that
Evolution is still a Theory, but that doesn't mean
I give the remotest credence to any other
hypothesis concerning the origin of species (even
if we do now have to accept catastrophism as a
possible contributor as well as genetic mutation).
And no amount of pother about Anderson's positive
statements of his belief being 'illogical' alters
the fact that most of us believe and state as
facts things that we couldn't possibly prove down
to the hilt. Police officers and prosecuting
counsel are especially given to asserting as fact
the conclusions they reach about cases they have
handled. The serious question about Anderson is
not whether he may have stated things more
definitely than scientific accuracy demands, but
whether he was likely to be right; and, moreover,
whether he was more likely to be right than
anybody else who said they knew about the Ripper.
When we know more about Littlechild we may be able
to say whether Littlechild was 'more right' in
saying Anderson didn't know as much as he thought.
Macnaghten, as I effectively observed in a
previous posting, is only of real value to
corroborate more reliable witnesses - not in any
way of use to correct our view of them.
Nobody's addressed your question about the
Ustinov panel. Their brief, as originally
propounded by Bill Eckert, was to consider the FBI
profile (which Bill hoped might solve the case as
a promising new method) and see what conclusions
they came to. The producers selected their very
limited range of suspects after talking to
practically everyone then working in the field,
and those with the half dozen that were either
historically worthwhile, ones the public would
want to know about, or generally sexy, were
invited to defend them. The profile was based on
the physical facts of the case then known, and
these haven't changed essentially, so the profile
itself wouldn't change today, unless some of Nick
Warren's interesting physiological observations
were brought in and accepted. (It would have been
great to have FBI forensic anatomists assess
them).
The most important definite new discovery
since 1988 is the Littlechild letter. While its
opinion of Anderson would have had to be brought
in, and I myself would certainly have liked
Tumblety to have been available as a suspect for
discussion, I doubt whether the introduction of
some one so radically different from the FBI
profile would have made a great impact.
The Maybrick diary would have to be considered
because of its public fame. But as far as I can
see Paul Feldman and Shirley Harrison are probably
the only people left who still believe James
Maybrick might have been the Ripper. So I doubt
whether that would have made any difference.
The only other suspect given subsequent
serious prominence is Chapman/Klosowski, and that
only because of Philip Sugden's very ambiguous
recommendation of him. C/K was known about and
available to be used if they wanted in 1988, and
for their own historical or commercial reasons
they left him out. I doubt whether they'd have
reconsidered him seriously on the recommendation
of a historian who says he DOESN'T believe him to
be the Ripper.
In fact, Sugden's book very interestingly shows
up just how little that is new and central to the
case really has been discovered since about 1989.
I was amazed by how few new facts came out of that
very thorough re-examination of the primary
sources.
I'm sorry - i just don't understand what point
you're making about the prevalence or otherwise of
wandering lunatics as serial killers.
With all good wishes,
Martin |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 06:09 pm | | To; Martin Fido
Just as a matter of interest, as for 'Coppers on the ground favouring the Doctor Theory'..This continued in oral tradition until the early 1970's at least when my father was a market policeman at Spitalfields...It was still the commonly held theory amongst officers from Bishopsgate Nick at that time. (Incidentally, the Market porters were most averse to entering the Fruit Exchange-built over Miller's court- in the hours of darkness) Ah!! the happy days of a young teenager tramping the East End to meet his Dad...Sorry gone into nostagia mode....
Steve S. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 07:45 pm | | Martin
I am pleased you brought up the 'burking motive', for quite some time I have been gathering what I can on anything to do with bodysnatching, following it going out of fashion in the 1830's.
I read about Burke & Hare and others, and have been hunting down your 'Bodysnatchers' book for some time. I finally tracked a copy down, but as you brought it up, would you kindly enlighten us as to why the 'burking theory' was so soundly buried.
From what I read it was only the British Medical Journal who frowned publicly on this idea, proposed by Wynne-Baxter, but not actually investigated. From what I understand it was just left alone and never pursued, do you have any info to the contrary?.
Thankyou, in advance, Jon |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 20 June 2000 - 10:32 pm | | Everyone,
Watch out for new or obscure posters appearing on these boards in contexts favorable to Mr. Harris. Often they appear just when Mr. Harris seems to have use of them, say a few words, and leave. I refer to "Chas Gilbert" above. Mr. Harris has a welcome or unwelcome toady named Ivor, who has posted variously as Ivor Q.U. Estion, Anon, and a great many other banal and forgettable aliases. This should not be construed as my accusing Mr. Harris.
David |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 03:48 am | | Martin,
Thank you for the kind comments. I think that the answer to the hierarchy in the investigation of the Whitechapel murders is rather simple.
We know that, according to Dew, three Detective Inspectors from Central Office, Scotland Yard, were assigned to the inquiry into the Whitechapel murders in early September 1888. These men were Inspectors Abberline, Moore and Andrews. The senior of these three, and the man with the great local knowledge, was Abberline.
It must be noted that the police in general regarded the series of Whitechapel murders as beginning with the murder of Emma Smith, in April 1888, and ending with the murder of Frances Coles in February 1891. They were well aware that more than one killer was at work, and they were also aware that a core of murders occurred in late 1888, which could be ascribed to one hand, that of, for want of a better name, 'Jack the Ripper.' Some even included certain of the later murders.
Abberline was in charge of the Whitechapel investigation from September 1888 until c March 1889, when he moved on. This left Moore in charge of the investigations at Whitechapel as is patently evident from his reports on the McKenzie and subsequent murders. Thus, in the investigation of the murders at Whitechapel, Moore was effectively there from the beginning, with, but subordinate to, Abberline, until the final murder in 1891. Also the last report extant in the official files is dated 1896 and is penned by Moore, who, by then, was a Chief Inspector.
Now in the autumn (fall) of 1888 Dew was a very young DC, and may well have received his immediate instructions from Moore. So it is very understandable that Dew, recalling memories of over 40 years earlier, remembered Moore as leading the investigation (which he did from March 1889 to February 1891, and beyond) rather than Abberline who moved on after only six or seven months involvement. And, of course, Moore was a Chief Inspector by the time he retired.
From this scenario it may be fairly accurately deducted that Moore, rather than Abberline, had the greater knowledge of the series of Whitechapel murders.
It is rather naive to think that Abberline would nat have been in full possession of the facts of the case in September, 1888, and would not know that Chapman's uterus was missing. Indeed, his lengthy and detailed report of 19th September, 1888, on the Nichols and Chapman murders [Ref- MEPO 3/140, ff 242-256], shows that he was very heavily involved in the inquiries. It is well known that Abberline and, especially, Dr Phillips were keen not to publicise too much detail of the crimes and Abberline may well have been evasive with the press. But there is no way that he would not have been aware that Chapman's uterus was missing.
I hope that this may cast some light in the dark areas surrounding the investigation of this case. |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 04:48 am | | Thank you Stewart and Martin! While we're on the subject of Abberline ... I know the Michael Caine JtR movie is riddled with errors, but they did get some facts right. (No, I do not believe in any conspiracy theories!)
However, I have wondered for some time why the movie depicted Abberline as a drunk. Do either of you (or anyone else here) know if there was anything in any news reports or in the police records that even hinted that Abberline had a problem with booze? Or was this just another instance of so-called poetic license to bolster the movie's conspiracy premise ... that the so-called cover-up included putting an incompetent cop in a key position on the case?
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 06:29 am | | In responding to Melvin Harris’s post I did not avoid any issues, as he falsely alleges, but stated quite clearly that I accepted that a theory in 1895 would still have been a theory in 1910 (assuming that additional information didn’t emerge in the intervening years to harden the theory into fact – and I assume that Melvin knows this didn’t happen), but I made the point that unless Melvin Harris has evidence to the contrary, in which case perhaps he would be generous enough to share it with us, there was a suspect, there was a witness, there was an identification, and Anderson (and possibly Swanson) did accept that the suspect was the murderer. It may only have been a theory, but it was one apparently persuasive to Anderson (and Swanson?). That two senior and informed officers attached weight to the suspect therefore warrants the attention of serious researchers, not a glib Harrisian dismissal.
Harris likewise seems to think that it is an ‘illogical stance’ to expect the evidence on which Anderson’s theory was based to be known, understood and analysed before the theory is dismissed. I’m frankly fascinated by this unique and refreshing approach to historical research which seems to argue that the opinion of an informed contemporary source can be properly dismissed without having the faintest idea of the evidence on which that opinion was based.
The identification was the ‘clincher’ – or to put it another way, the refusal of the witness to testify was the reason why the police did not proceed with a prosecution - but was the identification all the evidence Anderson had?
Because Anderson does not tell us, Harris ignores the question and, worse, seems to think the question is an ‘illogical stance’. It isn’t illogical, of course. What is far more illogical is to suppose that in January 1892 for no reason whatever the police picked up a foreign Jew from whose medical records we can determine is unwashed, picking food from the gutter, listening to voices in his head, and generally presenting a highly unprepossessing appearance, who for wholly unknown reasons the police think ‘aye aye, that’s jolly Jack the Ripper’ and cart off with ‘difficulty’ to be identified by an eye-witness. Frankly, I think it is rather more logical to suppose that the police had a reason for thinking the suspect was Jack in the first place? And I think it is perfectly logical to ask what that reason was.
Overall Harris’s remarks reveal a failure to appreciate his source material. He says that Anderson could have offered proofs but didn’t do so. So what? Robert Anderson was the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and a man who might reasonably expect that his word could be accepted. He was writing an autobiography in which he was stating what he accepted as fact, not advancing theories which he felt obliged to explain or otherwise persuade his readers to accept. Why, then, did he have to offer proofs of anything at all? Anderson also reveals the altogether remarkable information that the organiser of the Fenian Jubilee Plot to assassinate Queen Victoria was a British informer whom he calls ‘Jinks’. Anderson is telling us something which he knows to be true. He does not trot out reams of details to support his statement. He doesn’t have to. He doesn’t have to prove it anymore that I have to produce proof to support a statement that I ate a bowl of cornflakes for breakfast.
So, reserving judgement until the all the details are known is not an ‘illogical stance’.
I won’t comment on Melvin Harris’s offensive and self-aggrandising remarks to Martin Fido, for his patently obvious and unnecessary rudeness about Martin’s vanity and ego, even if true, which it isn’t, is an outrageously comical case of the pot calling the kettle black. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 06:48 am | | Perhaps the easiest way of assessing what Major Griffiths may or may not have intended when he wrote about Anderson in 1895 is to transcribe his comments from The Windsor Magazineand let everyone decide for themselves what interpretation can be placed on his words:
"Mr. Anderson, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the present chief of the Investigation Department, is an ideal detective officer, with a natural bias for the work, and endowed with gifts peculiarly useful in it. He was a man of the quickest apprehension, with the power of close, rapid reasoning from facts, suggestions, or even impressions. He seizes on the essential points almost by intuition, and is marvellously ready in finding the real clue or indicating the right trail. With all this he is the most discreet, the most silent and reserved of public functionaries. Some one said he was a mystery even to himself. This to him inestimable quality of reticence os not unaided by a slight but perhaps convenient deafness, which Mr Anderson cutivates and parades on occasions. If he is asked an embarrassing question, he quickly puts up his hand and says the enquiry has been addressed to his deaf ear. But I shrewdly suspect he hears all that he wishes to hear; little goes on around him that is not noted and understood; without seeming to pay much attention, he is always listening and drawing his own conclusions.
Subordinates naturally look up to such as a leader, relying confidently upon his advice, and eager for his encouragement. Of course he holds the whole of his department in the hollow of his hand; from his desk he can communicate with all its branches. The speaking tubes hang just behind his chair. A little further off is the office telephone, which brings him into converse with Sir Edward Bradford, the Chief Commissioner, or colleagues and subordinates in more distant parts of the house. He is, and must be, perforce, an indefatigable worker, for the labours of his department are unceasing, and often of the most anxious, even disappointing, character.
Although he has achieved greater success than any detective of his time, there will always be undiscovered crimes, and just now the tale is pretty full. Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum."
In this short account of Robert Anderson Major Griffiths was clearly speaking about a man he respected and regarded highly as intelligent, perceptive and experienced. Anderson was also a man distinguished and notable for his discretion and secretiveness.
My reading of the article is that when speaking of 'undiscovered crimes', Griffiths was absolving Anderson of responsibility by saying that although the Ripper was never caught, Anderson nevertheless had opinions about the identity of the murderer which constituted 'a perfectly plausible theory’. I personally don't see any reason for assuming that Major Griffiths had turned from high praise of Anderson to diminishing and denigrating him and belittling Anderson’s beliefs and dismissing them.
Furthermore, what evidence is there that the discreet and secretive Anderson would have explained his theory about the Ripper in detail to Griffiths or to anyone else? |
|
|
|
|
