|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 25, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Policemen... What did they know?:
Policemen: What did they know? Part 3:
Archive through June 25, 2000
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 10:57 am |        | Stephen S - Many thanks. I’m drawing your
posting to Keith’s attention. He’s a keen oral
historian, and like Paul and me enjoys Ripper work
as much for the light it casts on background
social history as anything else.
Jon - The British Medical Journal’s 6 October
comment on Wynne Baxter’s suggestion that the
motive for the murders was theft of the women’s
wombs for sale to an American doctor who wanted
specimens to accompany presentation offers of a
monograph he was writing ran as follows:
It is true that enquiries were made at one or two
medical schools early last year by a foreign
physician, who was spending some time in London,
as to the possibility of securing certain parts
of the body for the purpose of scientific
investigation. No large sum, however, was offered.
The person in question was a physician of the
highest reputability and exceedingly well
accredited to this country by the best authorities
in his own, and he left London fully eighteen
months ago. There was never any real foundation
for the hypothesis, and the information
communicated, which was not at all of the nature
which the public has been led to believe, was due
to the erroneous interpretation by a minor
official of a question which he had overheard and
to which a negative reply was given. This theory
may be dismissed, and is, we believe, no longer
entertained even by its author.
And, indeed, Wynne Baxter never mentioned it again
- and he was not one to give up ideas he
promulgated, several of which have entered Ripper
lore. Other papers suggest that the hospitals in
question were UCH and the Middlesex, and that the
‘minor official’ was a porter. The BMJ’s very
detailed refutation leaves me, at least, with no
doubt that they knew what they were taking about,
and they were right, even though they don’t
specify the names and places. They seem to be
showing that they felt fully armed to respond to
any query.
(My elaborate firs tsentence is not meant to be
patronising to you, but to explain concisely to
anyone who doesn't know what it is we're going on
about).
David - many thanks for the warning. It’s the
sort of thing one had heard about the boards which
deterred me from ever looking them up until I had
time on my hands and nothing better to do.
Stewart - Thanks - from everyone, I’m sure - for
the preview of what we can look forward to in the
Source Book. Moore replacing Abberline as the best
informed copper on the ground - that’s an enormous
turnaround from the received wisdom 20 years ago!
Certainly if I’d been in the AC C’s office when
Abberline told the Globe he didn’t know what had
been taken from Chapman I’d have run, not walked,
to get the information to him. And probably issued
one of the directives against talking to the press
which journalists at the time and Dew years later
complained about. I still can’t bring myself to
believe that Abberline was simply lying, however.
Ashling - There is no evidence known to me that
Abberline was a lush, and absolute certainty that
he was not a bachelor competing with Richard
Mansfield for a West End actress’s favours! Paul
Begg’s research led him to trace the Abberline
family, and I gather they were disgusted by the
misrepresentations.
Paul - Gee, thanks a million! Now I can look
forward to future historians identifying the date
when one of my closest associates confirmed my
vanity and egocentricity! You owe me a pint for
that when I get back to England!
Martin |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 11:42 am | | Hello Everybody,
Just a short note about "Burking" which I believe the police did take seriously at one point.
If one remembers the pardon offered to any accomplice of the Ripper, one may discern a curious echo of the Burke and Hare case. In this case either Burke or Hare, I forget which, turned Queen's Evidence, was promptly pardoned, then waved his one time colleague off to the gallows. A situation where the authorities hoped history would repeat itself perhaps?
Finally, as to what the police knew. If Mr. Evan's post is accurate..."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." it would show that they were so overwhelmed by data, coincidence and conjecture, that they had little idea of the perpetrator's identity. Shurely shome conclusive proof that the conspiracy theory is shpecious. (Shorry!)
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 11:45 am | | Hello Everybody,
Just a short note about "Burking" which I believe the police did take seriously at one point.
If one remembers the pardon offered to any accomplice of the Ripper, one may discern a curious echo of the Burke and Hare case. In this case either Burke or Hare, I forget which, turned Queen's Evidence, was promptly pardoned, then waved his one time colleague off to the gallows. A situation where the authorities hoped history would repeat itself perhaps?
Finally, as to what the police knew. If Mr. Evan's post is accurate..."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." it would show that they were so overwhelmed by data, coincidence and conjecture, that they had little idea of the perpetrator's identity. Shurely shome conclusive proof that the conspiracy theory is shpecious. (Shorry!)
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 12:34 pm | | A very small note on the pardon. Somebody - I
think it was either Keith or Paul - has discovered
that the form of words used was a standard Home
Office/Police formula when seeking information. So
it does not necessarily imply, as we used to
think, that there was any definite (and pretty
certainly misplaced) suspicion that the Ripper had
an accomplice.
In Re Burke and Hare: Hare turned King's
Evidence. It was absolutely vital that one of them
should, or the authorities couldn't have proved
that the final victim, on whom they had all the
evidence, hadn't died naturally. If Jim wants to
open a new conversation place, we could talk
bodysnatching.
Martin Fido |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 02:23 pm | | Martin:- preferring to drink a pint with you rather than have it poured over me, may I quickly point out that I did not confirm the vanity and egocentricity attributed to you, but specifically denied it:- "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." If my meaning is read differently to the way I intended, I was simply trying to observe that Martin is not vain and egotistical and that Melvin's claims were therefore typical rudeness, but that even if it Martin was vain and egotistical, it would still have been hystrical to find Melvin, the epitomy of vanity and ego, accusing it of others.
Jim Leen:- It rather depends on your point of view. On 4th February 1891 Aaron Kosminski was committed to Colney Hatch, on 13th February 1891 Frances Coles was found dead, and in 1891 the last active investigation paper was placed in Scoland Yard's "Whitechapel Murders" file (which to all intents and purposes can be called the closure of the files). So, it could be argued that the incarceration of Kosminski and the attribution of Coles murder to someone else (Thomas Sadler)effectively marked the end of the investigation. So the dates could be seen as confirmation of the Polish Jew theory. A similar argument can be put forward for Cohen. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 07:17 pm | | Jon and Martin, the British Medical Journal did indeed ‘frown' on Baxter's ‘burking theory', as Martin has shown, but you are in error Jon in that the BMJ was not the only medical journal to do so publicly. The Lancet's response was, in effect, a literary public lashing of Baxter and his theory. It was more than castigation and fell into the realm of rejection, refutation and ridicule!
Under the heading, "The Whitechapel Murders", (page 637 Vol. II, 29 September, 1888) the editors started slowly,
"The revolting tale of the Whitechapel murder has been further embellished by the astounding statements which the coroner deemed fit to make public in his summing up of the case of the unfortunate woman Chapman."...
But when they had built up enough steam, they let loose with this,
"Although this statement seems to afford a satisfactory explanation of the motive for the death and mutilation of the corpse, it is impossible to read it without being struck with certain improbabilities and absurdities that go far to upset the theory altogether. We do not for a moment question the possibility of an application being made to museum curators for specimens of uteri. This is not an unnatural or unreasonable request to be preferred by a medical man engaged in the study of disease of that organ. But does it not exceed the bounds of credibility to imagine that he would pay the sum of 20(pounds)for every specimen?--whilst the statement that he wished for a large number, because ‘his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was engaged,' is too grotesque and horrible to be for a moment entertained. Nor, indeed, can we imagine that an author of a medical work to be published in America should need have uteri specially procured for him in England and sent across the Atlantic. The whole tale is almost past belief; and if, as we think, it can be shown to have grown in transmission, it will not only shatter the theory that cupidity was the motive of the crime, but will bring into question the discretion of the officer of the law who could accept such and statement and give it such wide publicity. The pleas that the interests of justice will be furthered thereby cannot be sustained. Such information as was given to the coroner would have been far more appropriately placed at the disposal of the Home Office and the police; for the clue, if there is one, was for them to follow up. In our opinion a grave error in judgement was made by the coroner's informant in this respect. The public mind--ever too ready to cast mud at legitimate research--will hardly fail to be excited to a pitch of animosity against anatomists and curators, which may take a long while to subside. And, what is equally deplorable, the revelation thus made by the coroner, which so dramatically startled the public last Wednesday evening, may probably lead to a diversion from the real track of the murderer, and thus defeat rather than serve the ends of justice. We believe the story to be highly improbable, although it may have a small basis of fact, which will require the exercise of much common sense to separate form the sensational fiction that surrounds it.
One can only imagine the effect this would have had on Mr. Baxter and his theory, let alone his ego, and I have always felt that this "lashing" was the reason that he dropped the whole thing.
Wolf. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 21 June 2000 - 10:01 pm | | Thankyou Wolf
Which makes my point, phrased incorrectly, that it was only the negative response from the medical community that persuaded everyone to drop the subject.
The tone of the above extract is obviously meant to dissuade anyone from promoting 'such a slur on the revered profession'.
As I recall no investigation was mounted in response to the charge by Wynne Baxter.
Instead we/they dwell on Jewish lunatics & deranged Doctors......and get nowhere.
A missed opportunity? |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 05:14 am | | MARTIN: Many thanks to you and Paul for the Abberline info. In order to prevent confusing anyone brand new to the chase, let me make a small expansion on your remarks, since I know you're separated from your books and records for the moment. The girlfriend (played by Jane Seymour) that Abberline and Mansfield competed over in the movie was not an actress. She was an artist, dressed "respectable," and named Emma. Since Abberline married his 2nd wife, Emma Beament, a good 12 years before the Autumn of Terror ... the movie folks stretched poetic license like taffy to move their courtship into 1888. The artist bit may have been conjured out of thin air to fit in with the needs of the plot, since I'm not so sure a merchant's daughter would normally attend art school or have a drawing master tutor her at home.
I know you know all this stuff, Martin, but we get new Casebookers on the web site here every month--who have the unnerving habit of recalling what I said in a post 6 months earlier, better than I do!
Janice |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 08:46 am | | Wolf - Thanks for a posting in the instant
'download, print, and gum into A-Z' category.
Jon - It would be fascinating to find that
American doctor or anybody else like him (and I
believe resurrectionism had a much longer life in
America than in the UK, for hospital supply
purposes as well as the extraordinary blackmail
that was even threatened to Lincoln's body. Am I
right in recalling that H.H.Holmes aka Herman
Mudgett tried to excuse his possession of one or
more bodies as being intended for sale to
hospitals? In the late summer or autumn A & E will
be broadcasting a documentary on bodysnatching
made by MPH Productions at the same time as the
forthcoming Ripper piece in which I think you may
see Stewart Evans, Don Rumbelow and me, but won't
I suspect, learn anything new to readers of these
boards). Please do follow out Baxter's theory if
you have access to research facilities. It could
well be argued that the medical journals were
defending the profession rather than perfectly
refuting the coroner. Go for it!
Ashling - Thank you. I don't always know all the
stuff, and had completely forgotten that the
'romantic interest' in the TV 'farrago of fiction'
(as I've always called it) used the christian name
of Mrs Abberline and offered her employment as an
artist.
Martin Fido |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 02:35 pm | | Hello Everybody,
Yet another short scribble made up of my usually dense questions and anectdotal rebuttal I'm afraid.
Mr. Begg, I'm afraid to say that I don't follow the logic of your last post. If Kosminski was committed prior to the murder of Cole, would that not negate his candidacy as JTR and quite possibly undermine the Polish Jew theory.
Naturally I have a vested interest in talk of JTR being Jewish but although I can accept it as a possibility I do not believe it. This is simply because the only witness who described the killer as such was the rather suspicious figure of Hutchinson.
Finally, a point which may relate to your research efforts, I once knew a chap called Francis Kosminski. And, bizarrely enough, he was a good Catholic boy.
Thanking you in an ecumenical vein.
Jim Leen |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 22 June 2000 - 02:38 pm | | | ....and apologies for the double posting of yesterday... |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 05:39 pm | | ANDERSON'S LUNATIC
The caged lunatic idea was a comfortable way of explaining away the fact that the police had never been able to declare the case solved and closed. It was also an idea that fitted in with the basic ignorance of the complexities of sexual drives. The killer could never be a cold-blooded, calculating, sophisticated man, he had to be mad and the mad ended up in an asylum, as a matter of course.
The vintage period for asylum theories began in February 1894 when 'The Sun' ran its lengthy articles on Jack the Ripper as a Broadmoor Asylum inmate. It was this 'investigation' that caused Macnaghten to write his now famous memorandum. And it was this series that won approval of the asylum theory from other papers. The editor of the 'Good Samaritan' even wrote: "I have read what has appeared in the last four numbers of your go-ahead paper, anent 'Jack the Ripper' with interest, since your theory quite accords with my own- viz that the author of the Whitechapel atrocities must have been a madman, probably escaped from an asylum, and that he is now either dead, or again in an asylum."
But the MP for Northampton, Mr Labouchere, had his doubts, saying "Jack probably was the same sort of man as the [Broadmoor] lunatic. But this I should fancy, might be said of many inhabitants of this metropolis. But when you have to prove the commission of a murder by an individual, you must show that there is no other hypothesis but one." He added, "I once had a lot of papers proving conclusively that Jack was a Spanish sailor. The murders were all committed when the vessel in which the sailor navigated was in the London Docks. He died in Aden and the murders ceased. Jack might have been this sailor and equally he might not."
Others thought the lunatic idea first class. One correspondent to the Sun wrote: "The story...seems to me to establish the identity of the miscreant beyond all possible doubt." And he called for the Home Office to set up a committee of experts to examine the evidence, since the police authorities were silent on the matter.
What the February 1894 sensation does show, beyond doubt, is that, prior to that date, no commentators, no journalists, and no police officers, of whatever rank, were stating that the case had been solved and the identity of the Ripper was known for certain. The 'Sun' investigation had in fact been first mounted in 1893 and its reporters had searched for every scrap of information that might confirm their suspicions and add weight to their final presentation. They found NOTHING in the many statements about the murders that gave them any reason to register an opinion that the killer was known and was not the asylum inmate that they were considering.
It was this knowledge that allowed the editor of the 'Sun' (T.P. O'Connor M.P.) to write: "We believe...facts will point irresistably to the conclusion that the man we point out is undoubtedly the long-sought criminal...It will after all be a relief to the public mind to feel that this inhuman -or rather, non human-monster is safe from all possibility of doing further harm."
The 'Sun' articles were of great value since they forced Macnaghten's hand, and brought together the names of one-time suspects, Ostrog, Kosminski and Druitt. In turn this allowed Griffiths to make public the current thinking of the Metropolitan Police.
It is ironic that Martin Fido was not able to take on board my very mildly worded criticism of his original posting. I found that piece stuck in time and said so. It was some 12 years old in its ideas, since it avoided all the new findings made since 1988. I did no more than supply a corrective piece, but found it met by a silly outburst. Then came the further silly attempt to denigrate the quality of the case I made by pretending that I was confusing an assumption with a fact. In his round-about way I was accused of invention by making Griffiths "a 'friend and confidant' who was 'given details'...What is the evidence that Major Griffith (sic) was anything more than an acquaintance who was given the sketchy outline he reproduces?"
Well, Stewart Evans has presented some fool-proof evidence that my position was correct, but does Fido apologise for his unwarranted remarks? Not a bit. He tries to compare the tone of my postings with Stewart's, which is quite dopey. Stewart was not subject to Fido's smears. If he had have been he would have responded in a much more vigorous fashion than I did. I promise you that! The facts are that Griffiths was a man used to asking searching questions and used to concentrating on fine details. His friendship with Anderson put him in the rare position of being able to listen to Anderson's exposition and query it. In the event he gave us his considered opinion, which ruled out the whole concept of certainties. Then, later, he openly gave no weight at all to his friend Anderson's views.
Since it is Fido, aided and abetted by Begg, who has introduced the idea of denigration, perhaps it is time that they now justify their vile attempts to denigrate my motives and actions in their letter to 'Headline Books'? They were only too happy then to present themselves in glowing colours by smearing me. Let them now justify their dishonest words, or withdraw them. No more delays please, do it now.
And I note that Begg is intent on pushing the idea that I am motivated by ego etc. He still fails to grasp the truth that I am operating on different standards. Higher standards. Not the standards shown in his writings here, where, in all the yards of postings made by him, we have never once had an honest valuation of the defective writings of Mrs Harrison and Feldman.
However, since Begg is stuck with this idea of ego-drive, but short on examples, let me delight him by offering two items which he can in future brand as 'ego trips'. Firstly, one poster has mentioned Begg's writing on the Norfolk's at the Dardanelles campaign of 1915. Perhaps it will not surprise some to learn that a far more accurate account of that affair, in fact the only accurate one in print, is to be found in my "INVESTIGATING THE UNEXPLAINED" Prometheus Press NY (still in print) Of this book Isaac Asimov wrote: "I enjoyed it thoroughly even though I ground my teeth (as usual) over the infernal way in which people love to be duped, want to be duped, and beat up anyone who tells them they are being duped. P.S. You do marvellous work. I admire you greatly."
As for the 'Lancet' report, which seems news to Fido, since he regards it as "download, print, and gum into 'A-Z' category." this was reprinted in full in my 'RIPPER FILE' of 1989. (pp 54-5) It was followed by a report of a very interesting sequel. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 05:46 pm | | THE BAXTER MYTH
I see that Jon Smyth writes "As I recall no investigation was mounted in response to the charge by Wynne Baxter." No official investigation perhaps, but the 'Pall Mall Gazette' killed off this wild theory with its own investigation which showed that: a complete corpse could be bought for £3 5s; a whole thorax cost a mere five shillings; while fifteen shillings would buy one arm, one leg, one head and neck and one abdomen. These prices referred to pickled dissecting-room specimens. As for the uterus, this could be had for the asking at any post mortem room twelve hours after death. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 06:24 pm | | Much appreciated Melvin.
I take it then that as far as we all know, there was no official investigation into Baxter's theory.
Anyone who may have looked deeper into this might know, to whom were these specimens avaliable?
- the ordinary public?
- Only recognized medical practitioners?
- private researchers?
or, would a foreigner who claims medical learning from abroad, but cannot gain recognition by the British medical authority, be allowed to purchase such specimens?
I do believe the foreigner (in this case an American) was refused by two medical establishments. So clearly the specimens, although not expensive, were not readily avaliable to just anyone.
Reason enough?
No, I do not have a theory along these lines, I am always interested in a 'closed door'. This was a suggestion that became public knowledge, was publicly denounced and never pursued.
The Pall Mall article was not an investigation, it was an 'expose' of sorts.
An investigation would involve searching for individuals who have a criminal leaning in this direction. This (to the best of my knowledge) was not done. And for it not to be pursued because of the admonishment of the British medical society, is simply not good enough.
This can only be considered a dead end if they WERE available to the general public.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 06:36 pm | | Here is a little question I've had on my mind, if anyone could guide me in my perplexity I would much appreciate it.
Why is it that both Anderson and Swanson say that the reason the caged lunatic was not proceded against was because the Jew who identified him learned he was a Jew, and refused to testify? If the suspect was an obvious lunatic, would it not have been known merely in that alone that he could not be prosecuted? And isn't this confirmed precisely in that he was placed at the Seaside Home for identification, and not identified at the police station? If the witness were to identify him at the Home, without standard police procedures such as a line-up, creditable proxies, adequate facilities, and such, a defense attorney could shoot the identification full of holes. Same thing if he identified him first at Seaside and then again later at the police station--the second identification could at that point be said to have been prejudiced by the first.
Isn't it necessarily true that whoever put Kosminski into Seaside just by so doing was begging off prosecuting him? But BOTH Anderson and Swanson apparently contradict this; by what they say and the way they say it, they imply that a bona fide attempt was made to secure a prosecutable identification, AND THEN the prosecution blew up because of the refusal to testify.
Weakly and wearily,
David |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 24 June 2000 - 08:14 pm | | How strange is it that Anderson said "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him" and Swanson, "the only person who ever saw the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"
Then Anderson, "but when he learned the suspect was a fellow Jew, he declined to swear to him". Then Swanson, "he refused to give evidence against him, because the suspect was also a Jew"
But when he learned? when he realized? what does this mean?.
I thought the identification was absolute? If the witness was SO certain, then doesnt it follow that the suspect must have looked Jewish? Are we talking about a suspect who was Jewish but did not look it? Anderson said "I am refering to race, not religion"
So, clearly this suspect was of Jewish extraction, must have looked Jewish. But the witness did not realize it, according to Anderson, until he learned, or was informed.
If their witness was SO certain, then the witness already knew the suspect was Jewish. How many low class Jews in Whitechapel did NOT look Jewish?. Unless the story is poppycock.
Also, how many police witnesses can make an absolute identification in front of police then refuse to testify? Isnt this an obstruction of justice?. Can we safely assume this witness was charged as an accomplice? would this witness be thrown in the slammer?
Even if witness & suspect were related, would the police simply let it go?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 05:25 am | | Melvin Harris's long post about caged lunatics can in the main be ignored as it has no direct bearing on the question. We are told that there was a suspect, a witness, and an identification, and we receive the impression that Anderson and Swanson accepted that the suspect was the murderer. Either this identification happened or it didn't. Whether or not 'caged in an asylum' theories were popular is irrelevant.
If the identification never took place, then the story is a lie and we need worry about it no longer. If Melvin has evidence (not his own vision of things) that it never happened then he will no doubt present it in due course and we can get on with other things. But if the identification took place then we have to know the evidence on which Anderson and Swanson's conclusions were based before we can judge the probability of them being right. We don't know what that evidence was, therefore we can't properly draw any conclusion.
Melvin wrote:- "The facts are that Griffiths was a man used to asking searching questions and used to concentrating on fine details. His friendship with Anderson put him in the rare position of being able to listen to Anderson's exposition and query it. In the event he gave us his considered opinion, which ruled out the whole concept of certainties. Then, later, he openly gave no weight at all to his friend Anderson's views."
I would be very interested if Melvin Harris would lay before us the evidence on which his certainty about Major Griffiths is based. As a friend of Anderson's, Griffiths may well have been in a position to listen and query, but that is a billion miles from actually doing it, so I would be indebted to Mr Harris if he'd show us the evidence that Griffiths knew anything more than that Anderson had a theory about the murderer having been incarcerated in an asylum. Likewise, we have from Major Griffiths himself a description of Anderson as a man notoriously discreet and reticent, a man who someone described as a mystery unto himself, a remark that Griffiths thought enough of to repeat. So perhaps again Mr Harris would provide his evidence that Anderson garrulously described his thoughts about the Ripper to his mates and surrendered himself to their interrogation.
As for the rest, it is Harrisian flatulence.
David:- Your point is an excellent one and has often worried me. I think it is dangerous to too readily attribute stupidity to people, therefore I feel that the authorities must have expected to be able to proceed with a prosecution in spite of everything. Indeed, Swanson indicates that they would have sought to gain execution. So therefore how visibly insane was the suspect? That question always makes me question whether the suspect has indeed been accurately identified as Aaron Kosminski, who as far as we can tell was manifestly insane.
Jon:- Although I think you are attributing to Swanson a variation of what Anderson actually said between the magazine and book versions of his autobiography, your point is a fair one. But do all Jews look like Jews? And is it possible that Anderson and Swanson only meant that the witness refused to give evidence when he realised that the suspect was the man he'd seen? Who knows! The point, though, is that either the story is a complete fiction or the events happened pretty much as described by our sources. When - if! - we ever learn the facts behind that identification then hopefully these little mysteries will be resolved.
As for what would have happened to the witness after he'd refused to testify, it rather depends on many factors, not the least of which is whether the authorities could actually prove that the witness had given a positive identification. In my view they might very likely have done nothing, since their case would not have been helped by having a hostile key witness.
There is a curious comment by Swanson to the effect that the suspect knew he'd been identified. We don't know what sort of identification took place. It is often imagined that it was an identity parade, but it need not have been. However, I wonder whether Swanson's remark is to be taken as meaning that the suspect recognised the witness? This might have leant considerable weight to the worth of identification for Anderson and Swanson. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 01:27 pm | | The issue of whether the suspect looked Jewish is speculation anyway.
But today, in our diverse society people blend in easier. In Victorian England, class was very important. All Jews, especially poor Jews had a particular mode of dress, hair style, very defined facial features, mannerism's, etc. I take it with a pinch of salt that one Jew could not recognize another poor Jew, especially as it was stated the recognition was immediate.
The whole story just sounds like Anderson exagerating an actual event into his 'apprehension' of the Ripper, but due to the lack of support from others, he had to let him go.
It's another one of those "The big one that got away" stories.
And Anderson is trying to elevate the story by making it appear 'absolute' when in fact, it was likely nothing of the sort.
Anderson's ego is responsible for this story, nothing else.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 02:40 pm | | Jon,
I'm a CPA, and I have a file room where I keep the paper records of the jobs I've done over the years. When I go into that room, I know I'm standing amidst truth. I simply would not have released and signed any of that material if I hadn't made absolutely sure it was correct beforehand--my livihood at stake. There is no way there are significant inaccuracies or misinterpretations of the statutes in that room, and there is enough paper there to construct a box big enough to live in, unless a client had lied to me and I hadn't caught it. There is just no way. When I say it's right, unless I've been lied to, it's right.
David |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 25 June 2000 - 05:07 pm | | David
I think I understand YOUR point, but why is that relevent?
After 22 years could you refer back to one particular file and quote details & numbers from memory, without error, without exageration?
No, you couldnt,.....thats MY point.
Jon |
|
|
|
|
