|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 10, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Cases That Haunt Us, The (Douglas and Olshaker, 2000) :
Archive through December 10, 2000
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 04:36 am |        | Paul,
How in this case would we test for the truth or untruth.Even if a hundred people professed a belief in Anderson's inability to lie,that in itself does not make a general statement of his unquestionable.
It is only by taking each element of that statement,and supporting it by fact,that we can come to a decision of whether it is believeable or not.
Anderson himself does not give the information that would support the provenence of what he says,so all of us,both for and against,are in the unenviable position of having to guess.Not a good position to start from,as I think most people would agree,and certainly not a position that ought to persuade people that the case has been solved. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 05:27 am | | Hi Harry
We test a source by seeing if it is honest overall and this is achieved by seeing if it conforms to what we believe from independent sources to be the truth. This kind of source analysis is standard historical practice and is one of the few ways historians have of establishing the reliability of source material.
In the case of Anderson we don't look at a specific, but look at Anderson's book (and, indeed, his entire literary output and all sources) as a whole and compare all that he tells us with known 'facts'. In the case of Anderson his accounts are accurate and where he makes other startling revelations - that the organiser of the Jubilee Plot was a British informar and his authorship of the Parnell material in The Times - they have been shown to be true. If Anderson overall is shown to be honest, then it is deemed a reasonable assumption that he will also be honest when telling us things we cannot verify. As said, this is standard historical practice.
Thus we conclude that the identification story is true and did take place broadly as Anderson described. Whether or not his conclusion was correct is another matter. We can't assess that until we knowthe evidence on which it was based. Meantime, people advance various theories to explain why Anderson may have been persuaded of its truth (he was anti-Semitic or senile or ego-driven or whatever), all of which are worth airing and considering, but which should not be used to persuade people that Anderson was wrong. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 12:46 pm | | Paul
Possibly your emphasis is a little too pointed.
No-one can seriously argue against a witness, a suspect & an identifiction.
There is no reason to doubt the basis of his statement. Pizer was one of the first popular suspects who suffered facing a witness at an identification. Grainger was one of the latter suspects placed in front of a witness at an identification.
God only knows how many other suspects were hauled in front of a witness for I.D. so the basic question "was there a suspect, a witness & an identification?" is immaterial here.
What Anderson is saying (in my opinion) is that out of all the other (weekly? monthly?, handfull? dozens?) of suspect/witness/I.D.'s that were going on, only on this one particular occation can we be said to have actually had Jack the Ripper in custody.
And it is this definate statement that is under question. Not did it happen, but was this one particular instance actually Jack !!
And in order to ascertain the possibility that he was correct, we must look at the circumstances that makes him think this way. And it is the finer details that appear to be suspicious and possibly wrong.
The event happened, no question.....but why did Anderson think this man was Jack?
(a definitely ascertained fact?)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 01 December 2000 - 03:19 pm | | Hi Jon
Whether or not the identification happened is being questioned by Harry. I am simply rejecting that suggestion for the reasons I have given. You are saying something different, namely that the identification did take place and that we must try to assess the probability of Anderson's conclusion being correct. With this I am in absolute and complete agreement. I also agree that the finer detail here does make his claims suspicious and make one suspect that he is wrong. Equally, of course, he could be right. We don't know because we don't have sufficient information to form any conclusion that is more than a guess. My only contention is that Anderson deserves priority when it comes to research. Others will disagree (thank goodness, otherwise we'd all be hunting Polish Jews).
I don't have any argument whatsoever with what you have said. I was simply rejecting Harry's suggestion that the identification etc. never took place. |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 02 December 2000 - 04:49 am | | Paul,Jon,
Each case of Anderson must be tested by the facts of the case in question.No doubt the cases mentioned are supported by facts,and not by a belief that Anderson is an honest person.
Jon say's no one can argue against a witness,a suspect and an identification.I would not argue if Jon supplied facts supporting his statement.
Where was the place of identification,who were the witness and suspect.They do not exist because a certain person was believed to be honest.
As I have said before,I am just an ordinary person without any special qualifications or skills,but I think even I can see the flaw in accepting that a statement must be fact simply because a person is deemed to be beyond reproach.
My objections are based on experience,over seventy years of it,in many kinds of vocations,and situations,and I have yet to meet the man whose word alone is ever to be accepted over known or unknown facts. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 02 December 2000 - 11:06 am | | Harry / Paul
I think we have two extreme's here, what I was explaining is something halfway inbetween.
Harry, when I said "No-one can seriously argue against a witness, a suspect & an identifiction." I thought I explained it clear enough by mentioning that the ID claim was nothing out of the ordinary. ID's were known from Pizer to Grainger and possibly several others inbetween. The point being, it is not a claim that can be easily argued against. There's nothing wrong with it, this in itself does not mean conclusively that it happened, but unless you can find some evidence to the contrary then on what grounds can you suggest it false?.
My objection to the whole Anderson issue is his dogmatic statement that this poor polish Jew was Jack the Ripper, this I find extremely arguable and partly due to him writing so long after the events and potential for confusing specific details. I can buy the suspect being the murderer of Stride and in that respect, Anderson thinking the same murderer was Jack would help explain his dogmatic opinion. But we know today that whether she was Jack's victim or not is still under much debate.
Paul accepts Anderson's "definitly ascertained fact", and I do not, but otherwise I think Paul & I accept the broad claims of Anderson & Swanson. Excepting the location of the ID (Seaside Home), this location is either completely wrong, or if correct, it betray's more hidden facts about the case than we are aware of.
But if you are suggesting that even the witness/suspect/ID event is a total fabrication then on what arguable grounds do you form this opinion?.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 03 December 2000 - 04:29 am | | Jon,
Simply on the grounds that there are no facts to support the statement.
Where it is just a matter of belief we must make our own judgements.
Consider another mystery.Harold Bell Lassiter,an Australian,claimed to havediscovered a gold reef and evidence that at one time,in the dim past,in central Australia,lived a people who built stone dwellings.
Lassiter was not considered a truthful person,and was of low standing in society,so little credibility was given to his claims.
The government of the day refused to fund an expedition to relocate the sites,rumour being that it would lead to a stampede into tribal lands.
Lassiter eventuallu set off alone to prove the truth of his story,but perished in the desert without doing so.
What is that to do with the arguement here.Well I would sooner believe a man like lassiter who died trying to prove his statements,than a person like Anderson who risked nothing,but refused to reveal his. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 03 December 2000 - 10:57 am | | Ok Harry, I see what you mean, but the Ripper case is riddled with singular statements, one person observations that cannot be verified in any way.
Take, for instance, the statements of Mrs Maxwell & Maurice Lewis, (Kelly alive at 8.00am). Then we have Walter Dew in his memoirs relating the photographing of Kelly's eyes. And William Druitt's word on 'finding' the incriminating suicide note. For the longest time there was only Anderson's word that the Ripper letter(s) were the work of an enterprising London journalist. And of course Macnaghten's "from private sources" statement, that many today have reservations about.
When we judge these kind of statements we have to take into account whether there is anything to be gained by the subject who makes the claim. With Maxwell & Lewis there was nothing to be gained, yet their stories are NOT largely accepted. With Dew, he also had nothing to gain, yet I think his story IS largely accepted.
And now with Druitt, Macnaghten & Anderson, it could be said that each may have had something to gain by what they ask us to believe, and yet their stories ARE largely accepted.
It's in the eye of the beholder, and people will tend to believe whatever fits in with their preconception of who Jack was, or their take on certain events in the whole Ripper investigation.
In the case of the witness ID with Anderson, he makes a reasonable claim that a particular suspect was subject to an identification at some location. This was done with other suspects throughout the investigation and it is not unreasonable to believe Anderson's recollections on that point.
But if you choose not to, then no amount of convincing will change your mind.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 02:53 am | | Harry, If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? In other words, if you weren't there to see it, how do you know something happened? Unless you were actually there, you don't know and cannot know what Harold Bell Lassiter actually did. Your information will be second-hand at best and possibly many times removed from the actual event. Even if you are present at an event, you can't be sure that what you saw or experienced and can talk about is an accurate reflection of what really happened because people see things differently, their impressions coloured by their emotions and their perspectives.
How do you know the Battle of Hastings took place, that Julius Casesar came to Britain in 55BC or that there ever was such a person as Boudica? We 'know' these things because we accept that the sources that tell us about them are reliable. How we determine their reliability is another matter, but is essentially testing the document in the manner already described. In the case of Anderson, what he tells us overall can be shown to be generally accurate, even when it is a startling revelation like the Parnell business (a revelation that came whisker-close to losing him his pension!). Anderson therefore appears to be an overall reliable source. If that assessment is to be challenged then the challenge has to be based on more substantial evidence than that he could be lying because people lie. This isn't to say that Anderson is telling us the truth. It's just that there is no reason to suppose that he isn't.
Jon, I don't believe the 'definitely ascertained fact'. I believe that Anderson believed it. I don't believe that the Polish Jew was Jack the Ripper. I believe that Anderson believed it. I think the Polish Jew 'theory' is the primary theory simply because (a) Anderson stated it as a fact, whereas others acknowledged that they were advancing theories, and (b) because Anderson knew about the evidence against the other suspects and apparently rejected it in favour of the evidence against the Polish Jew. Given that Anderson was contemporary, informed, intelligent and so on, he is a witness to whose testimony we should pay attention. |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 05:24 am | | Jon,
The statements of Maxwell and Lewis are contested by other evidence,medical evidence for example,but in any case I would no more accept their evidence than that of Andeson,unless there was good supporting evidence.
I do accept that Hutchinson made a statement,
because it is suppoted by documetary proof.That puts it as simple as I can make it,but yes I agree with you,I will not accept anything unless it is convincing.Is Andesons statement convincing?.
Paul,
If I walked through a forest one day and saw a tree standing,and walked through the forest the next day and saw it lying on the ground I would know something had happened.I would not have seen it happen,I would not have heard it happen but I would be aware it happened.
I did not say I knew what happened in the case of Lassiter,or that I believed his claim,I was only drawing a comparison between what each did to substantiate his claim.
In your other illustrations,there is an abundance of names ,dates,places and incidents,compiled by historians like yourself,to satisfy even the most douubting of us.
The case of Anderson is entirely different.He claimed to have had knowledge,but would not divulge it.
Regards,
Harry. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 06:05 am | | | Harry , is Anderson's statement , that he had knowledge but did not reveal it , just cause to render what he says unreliable ? It is the case that when he says something that can be checked , this information proves reasonably accurate and we do not have any evidence or motive otherwise that might imply Anderson was not telling the truth here also. Thus why should we not believe him ? He may have been mislead that this man was the Ripper , but he believed that he was a good candidate for him and it is this belief he has reiterated here. Swanson's marginalia is evidence that events did happen in some form in relation to a Jew , and we have no reason to doubt Swanson's notes as they were not intended for publication. |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 07:10 am | | Harry:- I think you are treating my example too literally. All I was trying to explain is that we were not around to see what happened 100 years ago and our knowledge of that time is therefore wholly derived from what we are told by those who were. How do we know that what we are being told is the truth? Well, we don't. But we accept what we are told if there is no reason to suppose that we are being lied to. All historical knowledge is obrtained in this way and there is no substantial difference between written sources that tell us about Boudica and written sources that tell us about the Polish Jew. They are tested and their reliability guaged in pretty much the same way. As said, in the case of Anderson, is what he tells us is shown to be true when it can be compared to other sources, then there is no reason to suppose that he isn't telling us the truth when what he tells us can't be tested and corroborated. Like it or not, that's what history is all about - when a person in a position to know the facts tells us something, we assume that what we are told is true unless there is reason to suppose that it isn't. How else can we know about the past?
So, we accept that there was an identification (and Swanson ads corroboration) and that Anderson believed the suspect was Jack the Ripper. Whether or not Anderson's conclusion was correct remains to be seen. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 04 December 2000 - 12:52 pm | | Jon, I don't believe the 'definitely ascertained fact'. I believe that Anderson believed it.
My oppologies Paul, you have argued so persuasively for the theory that I must have got the wrong end of the stick.
However....
(a) Anderson stated it as a fact, whereas others acknowledged that they were advancing theories.
That, in itself, does not make it a fact. Surely, when a person says "I knew it for a fact" (the definitely ascertained fact?) it needs to be shown to be fact, otherwise, it is still his opinion.
(b) because Anderson knew about the evidence against the other suspects and apparently rejected it in favour of the evidence against the Polish Jew. Given that Anderson was contemporary, informed, intelligent and so on, he is a witness to whose testimony we should pay attention.
Cannot this argument be used to equally support Macnaghten's view (Druitt)?. Anyone can state they 'knew it' for a fact, but human experience tells us that a statement of that sort only indicates to what extent the individual himself is convinced.
Whereas another person will simply (and more honestly?) say, "in my opinion" etc.
Abberline, Smith, Littlechild and others all had an opinion, and I would be the last person to believe that only those at the top were fully informed. I do not think your status in hierachy is a good indication of your knowledge of what is happeneing at street level.
Leaving that aside for a minute.....
I have suggested this before & I still maintain that the context in which Anderson used his 'definitely ascertained fact' could equally be meant as "it was a fact that the suspect was a poor Polish Jew" and not that "it is a fact the suspect was Jack the Ripper"
Maybe I am still alone in my opinion, but thats nothing knew.
Harry:
Actually, I thought the medical evidence (Kelly's time of death) was inconclusive, and that is one reason why the Maxwell - Lewis statements are still being aired.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 05:21 am | | Jon,
Although the actual time of death of Kelly is inconclusive,there is medical opinion that puts the time in rather a broad band during the early hours of the morning.
Maxwell-Lewis statements in my opinion supports my arguement.They did give backing to their claims by giving a name,a place and a time so their evidence could be tested.Anderson does none of these things.
Paul,
in a general sense you are correct about history,but not every incident or statement can be tested as to its accuracy.I think it would be folly not to accept that among the figures of the past,there would not be some liars.
Anderson himself was believed to be of the opinion that when the need for secrecy had passed,the public should be entitled to know the truth.When he compiled his memoirs, over twenty years had gone by.One other comment.Both Anderson and Swanson were married men with families,
Anderson having five sons.Is it conceivable that over the years the case would not be discussed with them,and human nature being what it is,would they not want the world to know the success of their fathers.
Simon,
I believe that most of the time people tell the truth,but I also know that a great many people are sometimes known to lie.I do not know that Anderon lied.What appears strange to me,is that for some reason,quite a few persons will not acknowledge that he could do so.Now he had plenty of time when compiling his memoirs,to consider the value of what he was saying.Obviously a talented,educated and intelligent man he would know that the identification episode,without supporting facts,could be fairly quieried as to its authenticity,and hence the question of his truthfulness brought into question.Could it be that if he did supply names and places,even after twenty years there may still be those alive who could and would prove his words false.perhaps better to be thought as untruthfulthan to be proved so. |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 11:06 am | | Hi Jon:- (a) It isn't a fact simply because someone says it is a fact and of course Anderson stating it was a fact only indicates what Anderson himself believed. But Anderson believed it to be and offered it as a fact, whereas others offered their candidates as conjecture and theory. In my view this gives Anderson research priority. (b) No, I don't believe it can be applied to Macnaghten because (1) Macnaghten acknowledged that he was conjecturing and (2) we can't be certain and may even doubt that he knew the full facts.
I do not think your status in hierachy is a good indication of your knowledge of what is happening at street level.
I don't think anyone would argue with that, but we aren't talking about street level suspects. And whilst I appreciate how you reach your interpretation of Anderson's words and I am happy to acknowledge that your interpretation could be correct, I think it is actually quite clear that he was saying that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was the Ripper, not that the suspect was a Jew. It kind of trivialises the whole thing to imagine Anderson saying: 'hey, we had this really good suspect and it was a definitely ascertained fact that he was a Jew!'
Harry:- I'm not saying that every detail can be tested nor am I saying that untruth is impossible. What I am saying is standard practice to accept as reliable the unverifiable information in an otherwise demonstrably reliable source. If we don't do that then we have no way of judging the reliability of unverifiable data and much of what is called history will be binned.
I do not know that Anderon lied.What appears strange to me,is that for some reason,quite a few persons will not acknowledge that he could do so.
It is acknowledged that Anderson could have lied. That's why people have studied his crime and religious writing, have tested the reliability of the things he has said and judged his personality as best they can. The conclusion reached after all this work is that Anderson was not lying |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 05 December 2000 - 12:03 pm | | My word, what a splendid seminar in epistemology Paul and Jon are conducting!
Harry - like many anti-Andersonians you seem to read more into his words than they merit. The Ripper section is a few paragraphs in a book filled with things that would have interested many of his readers far more - like his lodging with te novelist Charles Reade when he frst came to London, or the revelations which really provoked uproar about his contribution to The Times' series on Parnellism and Crime. He was under no pressure to divulge any details. It is a very broad intepretation of the fact that he didn't do so to say that he 'refused' to, and there is no evidence to suggest that he thought it was in the public interest to do so. He merely remarked in passing that he was tempted to reveal the name, but would not do so because it would be going against the traditions of his old department. And that remark provoked Swanson's three exclamation marks, which I do not feel can be persuasively linked to anything except surprise (ironical, if you like!) that after saying so much more than the Home Office approved, Anderson should imply that he was resepecting departmental confidences. Not until long after Anderson's death did anyone pop up to say, "Hi! PROVE that there was a witness and a suspect." As Paul says, Swanson's marginalia confirm that he thought there was one of each, and in Paul's view Swanson agreed with Anderson that the suspect was probably the Ripper. (I feel that Swanson's words connote a litle more reservation. I doubt wheher he would ever have said that the Ripper's identity was a 'positively ascertained fact').
Now, nobody can object to your measuring historical acounts by your own experience and, if I interpret you correctly, you assumption that all men are liars and should be treated as such unless their controversial statements can be corroborated. Only that isn't a universally accepted rule of judgement, and it hasn't seemed the most useful guide for historians. Lord Vinson's ten golden rules for entrepreneurial success include a diametric reversal of your sceptical outlook, in the maxim, 'Trust everyone unless you have a reason not to.' And the historical approach is to look and see if there is a reason for mistrust, and then react to statements accordingly. So nobody suggests Anderson wouldn't, like everyobody else, have lied at some time or other in his life, even if only to say he was too busy to do something when he meant he was not interested. But examination of his published work has shown no evidence that he ever published lies (despite the parliamentary attempt to dismiss as 'Anderson's Fairy Tales' his assertion that he wrote for the Times with Monroe's approval), nor is there any evidence that by the time of his first recording his recollections of the Ripper case (1901) he was prone to errors of memory.
By contrast, Macnaghten can be shown to be riddle with error. Call it lying if you like: I don't myself for one moment believe that any intention to deceive was present. Just that Macnaghten was a slapdash sort of character who didn't bother to check details before bursting into print.
The crucial questions Jon and Paul quite rightly keep returning to are the nature of evidence and the difference between a fact and an opinion. Strongly held opinions are often presented as facts - (somebody said earlier on this board that it is 'a matter of fact' that we shall never know who the Ripper was. It isn't, of course. It is a matter of strongly held opinion carrying the considerable weight that it has been held by Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans, both of whom have made detailed historical examination of the topic. But it is still only their opinion. It is fair enough to say that we don't know with finality at this point in time who the Ripper was. we can however make informed guesses (deductions) as to who he may have been. And new information may endorse or undercut those guesses. A completely unambiguous confession by James Maybrick with some unshakeable evidence might even yet emerge, in which case a lot of us will have to eat a lot of words. It is not a fact that Anderson was an honest man; it is an opinion based on the fact that nobody has been able to point to his lying - indeed, we can point very directly to his admitting to using half-truths (equivocation) when personally interviewing a murderer, and explaining why he thought that this was justified, and was not culpable lying both because of the purpose and because of the nature of the addressee. From that we can perceive the fact that he did on occasion play a direct and personal part in investigations. And from that, again, we might infer that he could have been present at the Identification of the Ripper he describes, and so have formed a personal conclusion from on-thte-spot observation. But that is only inference - a deduction which supports an opinion, and objection to it is much more easily sustained than objection to the observation from Anderson's writngs and those of other people about him, that he is completely unlikely to have lied in print, and unlikely to have been mistaken in the facts he proposes about the Ripper identification incident. Of course, what he calls an 'ascertained fact' is, as far as we can see, only a strongly held opinion. Nevertheless, if the serious suspects files ever turn up, we might find on them 'hard evidence' procured too late to be used. It might prove that Anderson was correct: alternatively we might find that the hearsay 'private information' recollected by Macnaghten included either a convincing and corroborated confession Druitt made to somebody else (which, of ocurse, would make the 'hearsay' acceptable in court) or very strong circumstantial evidence.
What I think Paul, Jon and I are trying to do is prioritise the known or postulated suspects, so that we can offer a degree of probability in the case of each. When I embarked on my work, I expected to discover a 'more plausible' candidate than had yet been proposed, and this I think I have done. (Naturally I rejoce that Olshaker and Douglas, the original subjects of this board, concur, especially as they are completely disinterested commentators with no ambition to make any name for themselves in the world of the ripper. This, in a way, sets them apart form almost every contributor to these boards - certainly including me!) Paul disagrees with my priositisation (or in effect thinks that I threw out the most plausible suspect, Kosminsky, when I finally found him, preferring my earlier and, in his view, less plausible suspect Cohen). Jon disagrees with both of us. There is, by now, not a lot the three of us can put before each other because we know we are holding differing opinions, and it will require new facts to change our minds.
(As Alex put forward a new fact in his quotation about an American hat from the Daily Telegraph - for which many thanks Alex. it goes a considerable way to weakening my opinion that the word in the Packer notes might be read 'quaker'. With my best dictionaries in store, I'll be doing some reference library work to pursue this further).
It's not clear that Harry thinks any suspect can be sensibly prioritised. It's not clear what evidence he would accept for any such prioritisation. And if he simply wants to sit on the sidelines and say, "You're all fools to believe anything that is only said in one source," then I really think that as Paul suggests, a great deal more of recorded history is going to diappear without trace than most of us would find acceptable.
But keep arguing, Harry. I'm really enjoying the excellence of Paul and Jon's responses, which means n turn that your questions are going to valuable methodological questions.
Martin Fido |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 05:27 am | | Martin,
We don't know that no one ever asked Anderson to prove his statement while he was still alive.I find it hard to believe that neither his publishers,his family and friends and the various other people he came in contact with,did not at sometime broach the question,and though prove may be too strong a word,would they not ask questions.
There is no ambiguity in Andersons statement.there
was a witness,a suspect,a time and a place.That is what he said.He fails to supply an answer to either,and up to this time neither has anyone else.
No I do not think priority can be given to any particular suspect.Most of the subject matter of the Ripper murders has been discussed.That I am writing here is just chance.I saw the matter being discussed and joined in.
I accept most of the evidence put forward in regard to the ripper case.That there were several killings,the names of the victims,dates and places of their murders,officers involved,witnesses and locations and so on and so on.That may make your mind a little clearer.
I might prevail upon you,Paul or Jon to do one small favour.Would either one of you be so kind as to detail the process you think is neccessary in an identification procedure.
regards,
Harry. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 09:49 am | | May I just make a comment or two on this thread as I have always taken a particular interest in Anderson. We do, of course, know that Anderson was capable of lying and deceit for he gives examples of it in his book and readily admits to it. But, it would appear, in certain situations such conduct was acceptable (as indeed it may be). It is Anderson's own very apparent dogma that worries me.
As regards the more germane question to this discussion, the validity of his remarks concerning the identity of 'Jack the Ripper,' we enter an altogether more contentious area. For those very remarks contain what , if not a lie, most certainly indicates a belief in his own interpretation of things that amounts to self-deception. For he states: -
"I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence against him.
In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact..." (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, pp 138-139)
This statement cannot be correct, for it requires that a witness actually saw the murderer. A reading of all the case material reveals that no witness saw the proven murderer. For in the case of Stride the attacker seen by Schwartz may not have been her killer, and her status as a 'Ripper' victim may also be argued. In the case of Eddowes, as Paul has rightly pointed out, the sighting of a man and woman by the three Jews leaving the Imperial Club may possibly not have been the killer and his victim. The likelihood that it was the killer and Eddowes is very probable, but it cannot be taken for granted as fact.
It is, in my opinion, unlikely that the Jewish witness referred to could be anyone but Lawende, for it was he the police used in the attempted identification of Sadler in 1891. Unsurprisingly Lawende failed to identify Sadler. Lawende had stated to the police back in 1888 that "...he could not identify the man," nor the woman for that matter as she stood with her back to Lawende.
There are sufficient of the Police and Home Office documents existing to show us that there were no good witnesses to a suspect let alone the actual murderer. At best Anderson should have said "...the only person who had ever had a good view of the suspect.."
Anderson's memoirs are replete with name dropping and building of his own self-importance. He was a proud man (probably justifiably so), but today he would never get away with such a style of writing and self-promotion. Today's audience (and critics) are too sophisticated to allow such tales to escape unchallenged (although, of course, Major Smith of the City Police, himself no paragon of accuracy, did challenge Anderson). No senior police official today would ever dare to suggest that he knew the identity of a celebrated serial killer in an unsolved series of murders. Times were very different in 1910, and their standard of writing, scholarship and accuracy, at the accepted level, were very different from today.
I do not accept that such an event as an identification, in this case it would have been by the confrontation method, took place with only Anderson and Swanson privy to it. Such an idea stretches credibility to breaking point, as does the idea that only Swanson and Anderson would know that the murderer had been identified as a Polish Jew. Macnaghten was very senior to Swanson and was both Anderson's second in command and, more importantly here, his 'Confidential Assistant.' Macnaghten also took over Anderson's job as head after he retired in 1901, not retiring himself until 1913. Thus when Anderson published his 'sensational' and well-reported claim that the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' was a 'definitely ascertained fact' it apparently did not deter the still serving Macnaghten from his own ideas. For he knew, certainly, of Kosminski, yet still preferred Druitt despite his ex-boss's claims about a 'Polish Jew' suspect.
So whatever arguments continue to be proposed for alternative 'Polish Jews' alternative 'witnesses' or 'evidence that may once have existed' they must remain unlikely and be no more than sheer speculation. All we can do is take into account all the relevant information that has survived, assess it on its individual merits, and reach our own conclusions.
This will indeed remain an unresolved discussion with many different interpretations of events, but, I suggest, objectivity should prevail. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 10:33 am | | Hi Stewart
What you say is true, but this thread concerns Anderson's reliability as a historical source and, more specifically, is about whether an identification along the lines described by Anderson actually took place.
If there was an identification then all sorts of questions arise and attempts to answer them are based on all sorts of factors. But if the identification was a figment of Anderson's imagination, as Mr. Mann has suggested, then none of those questions are relevant.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 01:06 pm | | Thanks Paul, I believe that I do reflect upon the historical value of Anderson's book when I indicate that he was not writing to the rigorous standards that would be required today. Indeed, there is every indication given by Anderson himself that it was not a work of serious and scholarly historical study, but more a 'chatty' reflection on the 'lighter' aspects of his career and aimed more for the entertainment of his readers and his friends. However, it cannot be doubted that his work certainly appears more historically accurate than that of Major Smith, and does relate stories behind serious matters.
Although touching on many events of historical importance he states more than once that he was avoiding going into detail on the graver side of this career. Although what he has to say is very interesting it must be remembered that he was not a historian and his tales are less than objective. In fact most of what he wrote was influenced and coloured by his own perception of the events, himself and the way his readers would perceive him. Also the importance of his part in them. He makes a telling comment on page 105 of the book when he states unashamedly, "I have often been gratified to find how highly I am esteemed by people who don't know me!"
On pages 108 to 109 he states, more appropriately to the current debate, "The story of the eventful years that followed is a matter of history, and I am not writing history." (My emphasis)
On page 136 Anderson reflects on "the Jack-the-Ripper scare" he found "in full swing" on his return from Paris in the first week of October 1888. Anderson had been absent from the country from the day of Chapman's murder until after the murders of Stride and Eddowes. In his absence his duties had been made the responsibility of the Senior Assistant Commissioner, Alexander Carmichael Bruce. So for at least three of the murders, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes, Anderson's role can hardly be described as 'hands on.' He compensated, of course, by reading all the case files on his return. He states, "The subject is an unsavoury one, and I must write about it with reserve."
Of the victims Anderson states, (p. 136), "But it is enough to say that the wretched victims belonged to a very small class of degraded women who frequent the East End streets after midnight, in hope of inveigling belated drunkards, or men as degraded as themselves." He evinces no sympathy for the women in this sentence and, apparently, underestimates just how great that "small class" of women was. In the main it was poverty that drove them to the streets and degradation, not degradation that drove them to the streets.
Anderson's view of the situation makes strange reading, "...the measures I found in operation were, in my opinion, wholly indefensible and scandalous; for these wretched women were plying their trade under definite Police protection. Let the Police of that district, I urged, receive orders to arrest every known "street woman" found on the prowl after midnight, or else let us warn them that the Police will not protect them. Though the former course would have been merciful to the very small class of women affected by it, it was deemed too drastic, and I fell back on the second."
This is an astonishing thing for him to say. He was very much the 'new boy' at Scotland Yard and was a non-policeman, but is what he says rhetoric or fact? If the former course had been taken the whole of the uniform force in H Division would have been engaged in processing and looking after prisoners and the cells would have been filled to overflowing. The second course, which he states was taken, goes against the prime directive of any police force, that is 'the protection of life and property' before all else. Yet Anderson indicates that the women were not protected by the police and were abandoned to their possible fate. He states the result was, after the Kelly murder, that "no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper" series." This seems a very simplistic and unhistorical view of things.
He makes other odd remarks such as the house to house search was made "During my absence abroad," it wasn't. He also states (p. 137) "I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th July, 1889, was by another hand." If his information was so definite, why did he only assume that McKenzie was not a 'Ripper' victim? He should have been definite that she was not. The Coles murder he does not mention. An odd omission as it was the last of the Whitechapel murders in the files, and involved the attempted identification of a 'Jack the Ripper' suspect by a Jewish witness. All in all odd, very odd indeed.
On pages 139-140 Anderson is very insulting to the Chief Commissioners and the uniformed branch. The British police forces are full of tales of Uniform/CID rivalry, a tradition that continues to this day. Anderson gives an early example of this: -
"The 'Detective Department,' moreover, has always been an object of jealousy in the Force, and this disturbing element was specially felt during 1887 and 1888. This appeared very plainly in the Commissioner's Report for 1887: it ignored the Criminal Investigation Department altogether. "Boots are a matter of great concern," the report declared, and it recorded that truncheon pockets had been substituted for truncheon cases; but not one word did it contain about the crime of the Metropolis. Now, unfortunately, neither Mr. Monro nor his successor could ever realise that such matters as boots and truncheon cases, important though they may be, are not as important as the prevention and detection of crime, and the subordinate officers were equally dull witted. And the efficiency of the Criminal Investigation Department work, unlike ordinary Police duties, cannot but be impaired by influences which discourage or demoralise the staff. The crime returns for 1887 gave proof of this; and it was still more apparent in the following year. The Commissioner's report for 1888 accordingly recorded that 'crime during the year has shown a decided tendency to increase.'
Such, then, was the state of affairs when I entered on my new duties."
After assuming duties as Assistant Commissioner (Crime) Anderson was happy to record that the Commissioner's report for 1889 announced that "the criminal returns for the year showed a marked improvement upon the statistics for 1888." Anderson then went on to describe how the figures improved throughout his "reign" at the Yard. Anderson was very fond of quoting statistics which, as we know, can usually be engineered to produce the results required. There is no wonder that he did not want the murder of Rose Mylett in December 1888 to be recorded as murder (another unsolved one) but as accidental death. He went to extraordinary lengths to try to have this death written off as an accident. In the event he failed and it was recorded as an unsolved murder, much to Anderson's annoyance.
The Whitechapel murders were a series of crimes that markedly raised the level of undetected serious crime in the Metroplis, and featured at the start of Anderson's 'reign.' Signally he fails to regard them as undetected murders, to him the case was solved. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 04:36 pm | | Hi Stewart:- I wasn't suggesting that you weren't reflecting on the historical value of Anderson's book, or at least I didn't intend to suggest that you weren't. I was simply trying to keep the discussion to the question raised by Mr. Mann, namely whether Anderson was lying when he wrote about the identification taking place.
All that you say about Anderson is perfectly legitimate comment and for the most part I would have little or no argument with it. But if there was an identification and if Anderson was genuinely convinced of the suspect's guilt, without knowing more about the circumstances we can't judge the probability of Anderson being right or wrong.
A quick observation about the McKenzie murder; since Anderson almost certainly didn't get a confession from the suspect, he therefore wouldn't have known who the suspect and killed and who he hadn't.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 06 December 2000 - 07:24 pm | | Paul, I understand the basic thrust of your argument and you are correct to identify Anderson as an important source that cannot simply be ignored. Police sources must remain the best that we are left with in regard to suspects. Thus any officially named suspect must be looked at and considered against the few facts we have been left with.
In 1968 I purchased a copy of Griffiths' three-volume set of Mysteries of Police and Crime in a second-hand bookshop in Bournemouth where I was studying at the College of Law. By then I was deeply interested in the subject and had already photographed the murder sites the year before. The books set me back rather more than I could afford but I considered that they contained the best 'lead' on the likely identity of 'Jack the Ripper,' and I have always been a collector of original volumes.
The repetition by Griffiths of what we now know as the Macnaghten report (or memoranda) of 1894 held, I believed, the only possible clue as to the identity of the killer. It was long before the heady days of being able to access the original Police and Home Office files, and I felt that this report, minus the names of course, was the nearest I could get to anything remotely 'official' on the murders. The suspects described by Griffiths included, as I knew from Tom Cullen's 1965 book, Druitt and Kosminski. And at that time, largely due to Cullen, I favoured Druitt as the most likely of the suspects.
So as early as 1965 I had been 'sold' on Druitt as the leading suspect and most of my early thinking was shaped by what I had read in Cullen and Odell. Add to that the fact that Druitt was a local, Dorset man, the same as I was, and you can see the obvious attractions for me. I remember in those heady days of rather simplistic reasoning and accepting all I read in the books as factual how much enjoyment I derived from examining the mystery. No deep research for me in those days, I simply wrote out lists of witnesses, with times and details of what they had seen in my quest to try and get some idea of what had happened and what actual clues there were pointing to the killer. And it has to be said that I really did enjoy reading books on the subject in those days, and devoured them avidly. Now with a jaundiced eye and great cynicism I rarely enjoy a book about 'Jack the Ripper.'
The subject is now infinitely more complex for me, and much less enjoyable. It has become a job of work. Facts and snippets of information flash around in my head seeking their respective niches as I automatically compute new ideas and information that I receive. It is information overkill and that merely acts as a sort of anaesthetic to the enjoyment I used to derive from the subject. As I have explained in the past, the glut of books in 1987 almost led me into giving the subject up altogether and I sold my then valuable collection of books. A resurgent interest, mainly fired by my association with Keith in 1986, and Martin in 1989, led me back into my ways of old. And with a vengeance. For I recognised just how much new and valuable information was coming to hand.
I have digressed into these recollections to explain, in a way, where I am actually 'coming from' and that I really do appreciate the importance of Anderson and the officers who worked under him. Indeed, on my reacquaintance with the subject and the new revelations, such as the 'Swanson Marginalia,' my then favoured suspect had become Kosminski. Call me fickle if you like, but I do believe in listening to those who know their subject, and whose knowledge on the subject is deep and considered. The rest is history, and it is well known now how my knowledge, and my collection, have increased immensely.
So I do appreciate what your reasoning is when you make your informed arguments, and I do, believe me, consider all the ramifications and possibilities involved in any theory or argument. This is also tempered by a deep knowledge of both the law, the police and its history. Added to which has to be a large helping of common sense and ambient knowledge.
So I am not one who would simply say that Anderson, or Swanson, can be dismissed simply by saying they are lying, mistaken or senile. Nor should it be dismissed as simple wishful thinking. It is incredibly more complex than that. Some of the foregoing factors may be involved, but what is certain is that as soon as we start to put this or that interpretation on what they said we are straying into the realms of speculation and theory. But what they said is simply all that we are left with. For there is no official corroborative material whatsoever to prove anything one way or the other.
For me common sense, police experience and my knowledge of the case dictates that the combined information from both Anderson and Swanson simply is not totally correct. No such identification could have been attempted or carried out with the sole involvement of just two men, and they do not indicate that. If it was as conclusive as Anderson claims then the great surprise is that absolutely no one else spoke of or even hinted at it. And, as I have shown, there are anomalies in Anderson's words, as well as Swanson's notes.
In my effort to access all primary sources I eventually, through the offices of Keith, went down to see Jim Swanson and the 'Swanson Marginalia' for myself earlier this year. I know that you and Martin have seen it many years ago, and I felt that I could not comment fully on it unless I too had seen it 'in the flesh' as it were. I saw it, examined it, and photographed it, courtesy of the gracious Jim Swanson.
An examination of what the marginalia claims reveals that the truly anomalous part of it is that written on the free rear end-paper of the book. The note commencing "Continuing from page 138..." For it is here that the really baffling aspect of the marginalia is contained. It is here that the 'Seaside Home' identification is described. And this is the part of the marginalia that has always 'grated' on me as it flies in the face of all recognised police procedure and is really anomalous in its content. In reading the annotations made in the book it is natural to assume that, running out of space at the bottom of page 138, Swanson moved straight to the note at the rear of the book. What was immediately apparent in examining these two different notes is that a different pencil had been used on the rear endpaper to that used on page 138. The writing is very similar as can be seen in my photographs reproduced in the Ultimate Sourcebook. The simple answer is, of course, that Swanson used a different pencil and possibly made the endpaper annotation at a later time. Who knows? And I am not trying to insinuate that there is anything sinister here, but the mere fact that the two notes, when the second is so contentious, are made with a different pencil immediately struck me. I merely record the fact here as to my knowledge it has never been commented on before. Make of it what you will.
I had thought it possible that the attempted identification of Sadler (although apparently not a Jew, and almost certainly not incarcerated in an asylum) by a Jewish witness, together with the fact that there was also an alleged witness against Sadler in the Seamen's Home where he had been, may have led to a garbled version of the incident by Anderson and Swanson. But would Swanson mistakenly call the 'Seamen's Home' the 'Seaside Home'? It seems unlikely and too much detail is given to be simply written off as a mistake.
As I have indicated, Sadler does not fit the description of the suspect and, as we know, Sadler later 'sailed for the Spanish Main' on a gun-running expedition and was never heard of again. To propose anything like this as the answer would require the acceptance that both Anderson and Swanson lied or were mistaken which is another unlikely scenario. But all things are possible and this peripheral mystery is one of the attractions for many researching this case and attempting to provide their own solutions. It is the raison d'etre of this board. All I can say is happy hunting. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 01:02 am | | | I've always thought it curious that the report of the Sadler Identification attempt by the Mitre Square witness was never found in police records (as we're aware of). Instead we get it second hand from the Daily Telegraph Newspaper. Surely this was one of the most important events in the police hunt for JtR, yet nothing is found in the police files. Who communicated the information to the Daily Telegraph? Could it have been a false story? Maybe the police during this time, were attempting to ID Anderson's Polish Jew suspect in a remote locality, and fed the London journalists a false lead(?). |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 03:15 am | | An interesting idea Scott, but there is little reason to doubt that the attempted identification of Sadler did take place as we know that the police did inquire into the possibility of him having committed the earlier murders. To that end they detailed the dates of his sailing on board ship.
What must be more than coincidence is the fact that Aaron Kosminski had been incarcerated only a week earlier, in Colney Hatch, on 7 February 1891. Less than a week later the murder of Coles took place and the attempted identification of Sadler was carried out. It could be argued that when the witness was unable to identify Sadler in connection with the Mitre Square murder, he was then prevailed upon to attempt an identification of the Jew Kosminski who had just been locked away. This scenario still leaves us with problems, not least of all that no one else made any comment on such an attempted identification. The whole question is examined at some depth by Phil Sugden in his book. Of course if this was the case then we know that Lawende was totally unsatisfactory as a witness and surely could not be accepted as a reliable source for Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact,' unless Anderson himself deemed it to be so. Perhaps this could still allow for a 'Sailors' Home' or 'Seamen's Home' confusion by Swanson with regard to the location. The 'difficulty' in sending the suspect for identification that Swanson spoke of would then possibly refer to the problems presented by the asylum authorities holding Kosminski.
Whatever, we are here deep in the realms of speculation, an area which is most uncertain. Paul is the expert in this area and may wish to give his opinion on these ideas. |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 06:07 am | | Stewart,Paul,
I think the Lenghty explanation by Stewart,gives a much more thorough coverage of the subject matter than I could ever hope to give.
I do not think that I gave the impression that I believed Anderson to be a habitual liar,my comments,derived mainly from long experience,is that anyone will lie if they consider it is neccessary to do so,and that the identification statement on its own gave rise to a suspicion that this is what happened in that particular case
It was the abscence of any supporting evidence,and the conviction that Anderson and Swanson could not have carried out the neccessary tasks by themselves,and then contrived to keep it secret.In fact,if they are both speaking about the same identification,it is obvious from Swansons words that neither of them could have been present,for he speaks of having sent someone,which words leaves the certainity of himself not having gone,and also the certainity that Anderson would not have been instructed by junior officers.
My thoughts on speculation is this,if there is a belief or a suspicion that a certain thing happened,then no matter what the origin,it is sometimes wise to investigate the source untill it is proven to be fact,or of such a nature that it can be ignored.
Regards,
H.mann. |
Author: Paul Begg
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 06:25 am | | Because Anderson was in a position to know the facts, as far as we can tell is a generally reliable source, and accepted the guilt of his suspect as a 'definitely ascertained fact' rather than acknowledging it as speculation, I think Anderson's claims deserve priority of research.
I don't expect others to share this conclusion and, indeed, I hope they don't; I want people to pursue their own suspects. But I do believe that Anderson's suspect needs to be investigated and cleared away before we can properly assess the evidence against other suspects (because no matter how good Druitt, Tumblety or whoever looks, I cannot get away from the probability that Anderson knew all about them and dismissed them; given that Anderson had more information at his fingertips than I do, I feel that his preferences have to take priority over modern research).
Mr Mann is quite right to say that Anderson's statements should be questioned. Of course they should. But we are dealing with investigative stages. The very first thing we do with any historical is judge its reliability. As in real life, we accept as reliable that which we have no reason to suppose is otherwise. If a trained and experienced fire investigator who we have no reason to disbelieve investigates the circumstances of a fire and tells us that it was arson, we accept what he says. If a trained and experienced doctor tells us we have a virus, we accept the diagnosis. The authority isn't required to give chapter and verse proof, nor do we ask for it. We can ask, of course, and hopefully the authority will provide it. Anderson is no different, except he's dead and we can't ask for additional information. Given that we have no reason to suppose that Anderson is untrustworthy (which is not to say that he is accurate in every detail of everything he says, but means that he wasn't an out-and-out liar), we accept that the statement is true, hence my litany: there wasa suspect, there wasa witness and there wasan identification and Anderson did conclude that the suspect was Jack the Ripper. Having said this, there are serious problems with Anderson's story (though I think most emanate from Swanson), many of these have been outlined by Stewart and Martin and each should be examined individually, but the starting point of the investigation is whether or not the basic story is true. How the problems are weighted and balanced is a matter for the individual historian and the peculiar skills they bring to the problem. But when weighing and balancing there is an example that I think useful to keep in mind.
A matter of very great concern for the police was the Fenian plot to plant explosives in Westminster Abbey at the time of the Jubilee service there, thus assassinating Queen Victoria and half the heads of state in the world. James Monro writes in his unpublished memoirs of the very great anxiety he suffered at this time, yet Anderson states in his memoirs that the organiser of the plot was a British informer. How can this be? If the organiser was a British informer then the British authorities would have known all about the plot and it wouldn't have been the extremely worrying time claimed by Monro. We can work out all sorts of explanations, but I don't think anyone would ever have given serious consideration to what really happened. The organiser, Millen, was indeed a British informer and he had informed the head of the 'secret service', Jenkinson, about the plot. Jenkinson had done nothing to prevent the plot, hoping to catch the plotters in the act. Then Jenkinson resigned/was fired and he forgot to mention the plot to anyone. Monro found out about the plot by accident, but didn't know what if anything Jenkinson had done about it. Now, here we have a plot to blow up Westminster Abbey, Queen Victoria, most of the government and practically every head of state in the world, plus dozens of other dignatories, and Edward Jenkinson forgot to mention it! It beggars belief, but happened. I think we should be very cautious before dismissing what we are told as illogical, impossible, unlikely, not conforming to the rules, and so on and so on. For when the facts are known, things often become clear.
Regarding the Kosminski/Sadler identification, how this is interpreted depends on how we interpret what was known, who knew it and what was believed. Also on whether the suspect was Aaron Kosminski, David Cohen, or somebody we don't know about. Several off-the-top-of-the-head suggestions spring to mind: (1) Schwartz and Lawende were both asked to identify the Polish Jew and Thomas Sadler but we only know about individual identifications. (2) Schwartz wasn't asked to identify Sadler because he'd already positively identified the Polish Jew. (3) Lawende's identification of Sadler was arranged by H Division officers who were unaware that Schwartz had been asked to identify the Polish Jew by Scotland Yard. (4) Schwartz wasn't available to identify Sadler, perhaps having taken himself off somewhere after the debacle with the Polish Jew identification, forcing the police to use Lawende. |
Author: LeatherApron
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 03:46 pm | | Thanks to all who wished me well on my birthday!
Paul,
I agree with everything you say and would simply add that it is likely that one of the two witnesses (probably Lawende) continued trying to identify a suspect as JtR up to Grainger in 1895. I'd like to throw in another idea that satisfies me as to explaining Anderson's comments. Like you, I don't expect everyone to agree with or believe me. As I've stated before, the main problem with recollections is confusing the time (be it duration or date) that an event occurred. It is much easier when an event occurs on a date that has meaning (e.g. New Year's, etc.) but it's very difficult to be confident in someone's recollections if either (a) no eyewitness testimony exists to support their claims, or (b) no official documentation recording the event is available. I said all that to say, my thought is that the identification that Anderson recalled was in fact unrelated to the Whitechapel murders. I know it's flimsy and can't be substantiated, but it makes me happy.
Rick,
I sincerely apologize for not answering your question about the &74 issue before. I really thought you were just having a laugh by taking a poke at Stephen. Graham gave you the answer. It's simply that the smiley icon can not be embedded into your e-mail and is replaced with the &74.
Rick, Martin, and all,
Cheers for the thread about pubs. Very enjoyable and informative. I've always been an admirer of old architecture and tend to seek out the pubs that have the same design as those in the UK. I think our language has diverged to where people in England/Scotland/Ireland call them pubs, whereas Americans tend to call the "public house" a bar (in reverence to the most important item of furniture, wink) and Australians seem to use the word boozer.
I am, as always, your obedient servant,
Jack |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 03:59 pm | | Gosh! Go away for two days and come back to find an immense debate has moved forward!
Harry first. I can't stop you thinking that Anderson's wife, children, publishers, postman, friends, enemies, canary or dog might have asked him who was his suspect and who was his witness. I can't pinpoint any evidence from which I could even infer that it was likely. If they asked him when and where his supposed identification took place, he might have pointed out that he said it was after the suspect was safely caged in a lunatic asylum; they might infer from his saying no further murders of this kind took place after what can be deduced as being Mary Jane Kelly's murder that this meant after 9 November 1888, and, though it would be a thinner deduction, that it probably took place inside the asylum. (At any rate, my own examination of 1880s and '90s asylum records has no shown any evidence whatever of inmates being moved around for any purpose unconnected with their treatment).
I can see no reason at all for your saying there was a 'question' Anderson left unanswered. If you choose to pluck out of the air possible hypothetical questioners, nobody can stop you or suggest that your hypotheses are disproven, but nobody is under any compulsion to think the exercise worthwhile or conducive to establishing the truth. Very simply, there is a matter of difference of opinion here. You are not pointing to any facts to persuade me that Anderson was resisting justified interrogatory pressure, and you are not persuaded by my interpretation of Home Office files and Swanson's exclamation marks. Until either of us can produce new facts, there is little more we can say usefully to each other on this particular topic. My longstanding excellent relations with Shirley Harrison despite holding undisguised diametrically opposed views from hers over the Maybrick Diary have always rested on her knowing as well as I do the difference between a fact and an opinion; her being as competent as I at distinguishing between the two; as willing to acknowledge facts which tend to challenge her opinions (which doesn't mean that the tendency should force her to change them); and a sensible recognition that where absolute proof is absent, there is no point in wrangling repetitively over the same area of disagreement. (Of course, a further sine qua non is my absolute conviction that Shirley is a perfectly honest professional writer and researcher who did a remarkable job in mastering a lot of difficult material over a short space of time, and was then subjected to perfectly horrific attempts at character assassination by a lot of people, most of whom had some degree of self-interest in protecting their own vested Ripperian positions, and many of whom I found far less personally estimable or prima facie honest than Shirley herself).
On your more general point re the prioritisation of suspects, if you really don't think there is any difference between the certainty that Prince Albert Victor didn't commit any of the murders, the exceptional unlikelihood that Sir William Gull, Francis Thompson or J.K.Stephen had anything to do with them, and the possibility that W.H.Bury, Joe Barnett, Druitt or Tumblety could actually have perpetrated one or more of the killings, then our methodological approaches (and the opinions and attitudes on which we base them) are so far apart that, again, I can't see that either of us is going to benefit by further discussion. If Paul and Jon's brilliant epistemological exposition hasn't convinced you of the rightness of traditional scholarly methods, I don't expect to be able to improve on them.
On your last point, the nature of ID parades, I defer responding until I've studied the immense Stewart and Paul debate I see followng your posting, which may cover your question.
With all good wishes,
Martin Fido |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 05:47 pm | | Right. Now I've read through all the discussion:
Harry - The best account of a late Victorian police identification known to me is the Harriett Buswell (Great Coram Street) case. And all anti-Andersonians will be delighted to know that it redounded to the discredit of the police! Harriett, a prostitute found murdered in her room on Christmas morning, was said by several witnesses to have been seen with a foreign - probably German - man the previous evening. The police concluded - for what reason we don't know - that this man was probably the engineer of an emigrant ship that had grounded on the Goodwins and was undergoing repairs in Margate. They took the witnesses down to the ship and organised a line-up using people available without, apparently, any particular attempt to match them in height and general appearance. The ship's chaplain objected that an upright young man was being persecuted, and was assured by the police that he could oversee the whole ID, and even participate in the line-up if he chose. He did so choose - and a majority of the witnesses picked him out! The police promptly charged him, and insisted on proceeding against him even though he produced a cast-iron alibi supported by the entire staff, from the manager to the boots, of the London hotel where he had been in bed with flu for the whole Christmas season. The pig-headed over-confidence the police showed in this ID evidence should never be forgotten by those of us who thnk Anderson offers the likeliest pointer to the Ripper's identity. In my view it throws all Victorian police reliance on ID into question far more than the detailed criticisms of this, that or the other snippet from Anderson's memoirs and other writings. In one of either Griffith's or H.L. Adam's volumes of major late 19th century cases which asterisks those where the police 'knew' who had done it, although they had never been able to bring charges, the Gt Coram Street murder is listed as one which was de facto (though not de jure) 'solved'. The files give no hint of anyone except the unfortunate chaplain being suspected: they also show that he was cleared in spades, and one can only say the Met was stiff-necked, intransigent and wildly wrong if, as it seems, they went on saying they knew he had done it.
From the viewpoint of the Swanson/Anderson account, we can see the Coram St case showing that whatever the inconvenience, not just one, but a number of witnesses were taken from London to the coast to make an ID. The ID was carried out by (I think) an Inspector heading the team - it might have been a Supt. I don't think anyone has ever imagined that Anderson and Swanson carried out any ID in private on their own. This is, I think, just one of the men of straw anti-Andersonians like to set up as they have rather a difficult case to answer. There is, on the other hand, no reason to believe that an Asst Commissioner who occasionally visited crime sites and at least once interviewed a suspect, as Anderson did, would not have attended a particularly interesting ID in a case in which he had been given final responsibility by the Home Secretary and Commissioner. IF - (and this is hypothesis only) - he went and Swanson did not, it would offer a possible explanation of Anderson's believing the ID definitely ascertained a fact, whereas Swanson did not think such a conclusion was inevitable.
And on to Stewart's points, most of which, I agree with Paul, are material and should be born in mind. I think, however, the word 'lie' wants to be used very carefully indeed. We use it, for example, of Joseph Sickert, and rightly conclude that as a self-confessed liar he is a witness whose increasingly far-fetched and attention-seeking stories can be confidently dismissed as sheer fantasy. Lying includes both the definite intention to deceive and the deliberate statement of something known to be contrary to fact. Anderson actually disapproved of his spy Major le Caron's perjury in taking oaths of loyalty to infiltrate the Fenians, though without doing so he could never have been an effective spy.
Equivocation, which is what Anderson was aware of practising on malefactors he regarded as having cut themselves off from Christian brotherhood and other such human ties, admits the purpose of deceving, but is scrupulous about not mis-stating fact. It withholds part of the truth, or invites the listener to draw an erroneous inference (as Anderson, in the case he describes, told a murderer his victim's eyes had been photographed, knowing the suspect would draw the inference that the image of the murderer was captured on the retina, although Anderson knew this not to be the case). Whether equivocation is or is not culpable lying has been a matter of ethical dispute for centuries. Shakespeare refers to it in the drunken porter's mockery of the executed Jesuit equivocator, and the actual Jesuit at the time was relying on the argument of St Alfonsus Liguori that Christians might equivocate to mislead non-Christians whom they knew to have a bad intention that would lead them to abuse the truth if they knew it in its entirety. We are dealing with something extremely different from the sort of over-confidence - typical of Anderson, indeed - which led him to describe his own perception that the Ripper case was solved as 'an ascertained fact'. Such over-confidence was very much a mark of the late Victorian police - consider Warren's claim (or that of whoever wrote the memo appointing Swanson the Commissioner's Eyes and Ears) - that he himself or the addressee of the memo would be able to solve the case pretty quickly if they could only spare the time! Or Major Smith's claim that no man living knew as much about the Ripper case as he did. Such over-confidence doesn't seem to be lacking today when one often hears officers concerned with major overturned crimes (the Guildford six, for example) hint that they were actually guilty, or as near as dammit so, or even more shockingly, that they were far enough outside the mainstream of respectable society that they effectively 'deserved' sixteen years imprisonment for nothing. (I personally think the guilty knowledge of one of them is highly probable, but one only).
Nor do I think that the quantity of self-justification and revelation of the 'real' solutions of cases Anderson includes was something in any way out of the ordinary prior to the great drawing in of police horns in the 1980s (when PACE was inflicted on the force, and it was no longer guaranteed that the police could command 70% approval in opinion polls). The many 'Knacker of the Yard' memoirs that flooded out between 1930 and 1980 almost invariably gave Andersonesque accounts of flawless careers - or careers flawed only by amusing incidents which went to show the author's humanity. One of the best-known 'unsolved' cases of our time was 'Jack the Stripper' in the 1960s. Big John Du Rose, the SIO, gave an account of that with an Andersonian nameless description of the suspect he insisted was the murderer. Whether one agrees with Du Rose's 'solution' or not, this belies the idea that Anderson was doing anything that would have been considered extraordinary for the next 50 years - except by the bureaucrats who disapproved of his loose tongue, and anybody like Swanson who (if you concur with me) agreed with them.
One of the things I particularly like about the work of John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood, authors of the FBI profile of the Ripper, is their constant willingness to admit that they have been wrong at times, and that their predictions are by no means guaranteed. Roy, indeed, describes a successful profile as something to be 'banked' as a positive offset to the times when he's got it dead wrong!
I like to think I share this willingness to change my opinions when fresh information comes in, as Stewart shows us he has done in the past, and as I know from observation that Paul Begg does. Occasionally clinging firmly to a correct conviction in the teeth of hostile argument may be an important pointer to the ultimate truth. (Douglas insisting that the Atlanta serial killer was black and not white is a case in point). As it happens, I think my own insistence on the probability that Anderson's suspect was the only poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel to enter any London asylum at the time when the murders ended falls into this happy category. (It certainly renders nugatory any discussion of Macnaghten's role in or firsthand knowledge of the ID which Anderson took to be decisive). But I will, as we all must, change my mind when confronted with definite facts. And I will not be swayed by other people's dedicated opinions standing in their minds as having the weight of fact.
Nor do I think that the necessary attempt to explain the conflict between Anderson's and Swanson's remarks which purport to be describing the same incident can be written off as mere speculation in the same sense that naming J.K. Stephen or Francus Thompson as a suspect is speculation - or even the notion that somebody must have asked Anderson for clarification. There is nothing in the historical record requiring anybody to postulate these things. There is a hiatus which must be noted in the Anderson and Swanson statements. To use it to dismiss both of them as inaccurate is to postulate a speculative hypothesis which is actually more extreme than making a case for either one as preferable: it is dismissing corroborative elements in the two as though they did not exist. To decline to make any attempt to explain the hiatus is to leave a piece of nonsense in the record. Scholarly method prefers accepting the best and most economical explanation until either further facts or a better explanation can replace it. (We don't let Shakespeare's Antony go on saying a meaningless 'The Hearts that panelled me at heels to now discandy' once the meaningful word 'spanielled' has been proposed as an emendation, eventhough it is only a hypothesis based on its plausible meaning. we agree that Shakespeare might have written that: we know he couldn't have written 'panelled'. So - yes - my explanation of the conflicting testimony is not fact. It is deductive speculation, resting entirely on the record and including no elements pulled in from outside without some support. I do not believe the same can be said of any alternative explanation, and certainly it cannot be said of the attempt to dismiss any interpretation as impossible. This falls into the category of christopher Frayling's saying 'there was no Jack the Ripper'. In fact these murders took place. Several were pretty certainly rightly ascribed to the same hand. And the owner of that hadn't existed. The Frayling proposition was a nonsense, and it is an equal nonsense to say that because our sources disagree and we can't guarantee chapter and verse of the time, place, witness and suspect at the ID that any one of those can be dismissed as not existing, or that any attempt to explain the hiatus which rests on data given in th soursces can be written of as mere speculation and therefore worthless.
And Leather Apron, I'd have sent you birthday greetings had I known they were in order. I won't elaborate on matter pertaining to another board here: we've wandered a goodly distance from 'the Cases That Haunt Us' - but perhaps inevitably, as I believe it is not yet available in England.
I may be absent from the boards for a week or ten days as travel for a co-operative proofing exercise seems to be on the cards any time from Monday on. I only mention this to explain that I'm not chickening out if Harry or A.N.Other comes roaring back to meet with silence.
With all good wishes to all,
Martin Fido |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 06:51 pm | | Jack, Graham,
I thank you very much for satisfying my curiousity, you're my mates
all the best Rick |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 09 December 2000 - 12:57 am | | It is nice to see Paul and Martin putting their cases at length, and despite the fact that they do not agree with each other on the interpretation that they make of what is known, they both make interesting points.
Unfortunately I do not have the time available to make too long a response, having already given my views and not wishing to become too deeply involved in the realms of speculation and guesswork. I much prefer to stay in the more secure areas of known fact.
I must, however, come back on the subject of lying, for it must be said that the human being who has never lied or deceived at some time or other probably does not exist. Martin makes the point that he thinks that "Lying includes both the definite intention to deceive and the deliberate statement of something known to be contrary to fact." He then goes on to say that he doesn't think that Anderson would deliberately lie in that fashion, but only admitted to equivocation which he practised on malefactors.
I think this is an all too simplistic point of view as to what sort of person Anderson was. I believe that he was quite happy to lie if he felt that the circumstances warranted it and he personally deemed it alright to do so. I appreciate that what Martin, and Paul, are saying is that they feel that Anderson would not deliberately record such deception as fact in his books. I think that, as he admits to lying when he thought it appropriate, then we cannot just assume that all he writes is the ungilded truth and unvarnished fact. I have also pointed out the dangers of self-deception which I think Anderson was also perfectly vulnerable to.
Now, to example an instance of Anderson lying and deceiving, which he happily admits to, we need look no further than pages 33-34 of his book The Lighter Side of My Official Life. It involves Anderson's escapades in 'sneaking' into the House of Lords, where he had no right to be. Anderson states: -
"How many living men are there, I wonder, other than M.P.'s who have entered the House of Lords along with the "faithful Commons" to hear the Royal Speech at the opening of Parliament? My police constable friend put me up to this. [It was in the days before Anderson became Assistant Commissioner] "If we catch you said he, "its not in the House of Lords you'll find yourself; but we'll not catch you if you do what I tell you." I did what he told me. In those pre-dynamite days there was no difficulty in getting into the Lobby; and on the 5th February, 1861, I found myself in the middle of a group of M.P.'s who were waiting there. Presently the Speaker's stately procession to "the gilded Chamber" came along; and as soon as the leading Members had passed, the waiting group closed in with a rush. Had I been as anxious to keep out as I was to get in, nothing could have stopped me. I was carried almost off my feet, and it was not till I found myself inside the House of Lords that I was able even to raise my hand to get my hat off my head. Some of the Members were much amused at finding me in their midst, and quizzed me about my constituency. Donnybrook Fair had attracted the notice of Parliament at that time, because of the rowdyism which led to its abolition; and their amusement was increased when I told them I was M.P. for Donnybrook, and that my experience in the Lobby made me think myself back amongst my constituents."
This tale of Anderson's is related as a sort of 'gung-ho' adventure in getting into somewhere he sould not have been. And he shows no qualms about perpetrating the deception and lying to get there and remain undetected. For the circumstances, had he been caught out, would have been very serious for him, as his friendly policeman had warned him. With the policeman's connivance he obviously felt that he could get away with it, which indeed he did.
But the point I am making is there for all to see. So please do not suggest that Anderson would only 'equivocate' when dealing with 'malefactors he regarded as having cut themselves off from Christian brotherhood and other such human ties...' He lied and deceived on the above quoted occasion to further his own ends in infiltrating his way into the House of Lords and was happy to brag about it some 49 years later.
Anderson was also, although not happy about it, prepared to lie under oath when it was deemed to be part of an accepted police procedure. It cannot be stressed enough that Anderson is at pains to always describe this book as being 'the lighter side' and not a work of recording history. We simply do not know, and cannot take it for granted, that it is all 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'
This is not an attack on the integrity of the man, for he was a creature of his times and was prepared to 'bend' to what was required of him. His main fault, which cannot be gainsaid, is his amazing self-righteousness, self-opinionatedness, and pompousness. And it is in this sense that I feel that Anderson is quite capable of, at best self-deception, and, at worst, prevarication. But that is not to totally dismiss him as a liar, which I don't think that in general terms he was, but merely to warn that to accept all he says as gospel and carved in stone could be a path to follow that is strewn with some snares.
His book is an exceedingly valuable insight to his times and on the early history of Scotland Yard. His words should be heeded and carefully weighed. It is a great pity that he never did write of the more serious side of his official life, for I am sure that he would have made further revelations of great importance and which would cast a better light on much that is of interest to us. But he didn't. Readers of his book, and Henry Smith's From Constable to Commissioner have obtained the impression that the two men were at each other's throat and could not work together. However, the contrary was probably the case at the time of the murders, as is indicated in the official records, and there is every reason to believe that in 1901, when Smith was the City Police Commissioner and Anderson was retiring, they were on the best of terms.
In conclusion I have to say that in the light of all that is known about Anderson and his times, I have to demur with both Martin and Paul in placing so great a faith in what Anderson pronounced in relation to the identity of the Whitechapel murderer. |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 09 December 2000 - 04:05 am | | Stewart wrote: i/{I have to demur with both Martin and Paul in placing so great a faith in what Anderson pronounced...}
I think a serious misunderstanding is emerging here. I i/{don't} place 'so great a great faith' in what Anderson says, I have never said that anything Anderson says should be unquestioningly accepted, and I have certainly never said (and I would totally reject any suggestion) that it was safe to "accept all he says as gospel and carved in stone". Furthermore, any argument concerning the individual statements, stories, general details and susceptibility to human frailties and foibles is moving far, far ahead of what I am personally discussing here, namely the methodology by which a historian decrees the overall rough and ready reliability (or unreliability) of a source. All I am saying is that Anderson can be regarded as a generally reliable source insofar as where what he tells us can be checked it is in a broad sense true. I am notsaying, as I feel Stewart is saying that I do, that everything Anderson says can be treated as gospel.
The Venerable Bede is generally regarded as a reliable source and, indeed, he is known as 'the father of English history', but that does not mean that everything he writes is utterly correct and to be accept as if carved in stone. Likewise, Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings...is considered utterly unreliable, but that doesn't make him a source to be dismissed out of hand. Both sources, to greater and lesser degrees will contain truths and error. What the historian does is to judge the source overall, so that he understands what kind of information he is probablydealing with and he treats that information and any deductions based on it accordingly. In other words, and as a rough and ready guide, what Bede tells us is more likely to be true than what Geoffrey tells us. Like it or not, this is standard historical practice. Pepys is regarded as a reliable source, so when he tells us something that we cannot verify from any other source, we accept what he says. When he says he saw Nell Gwynne in a play, we don't disbelieve him and reject what he says until such time as he produces a theatre programme and ticket stub. Anderson is likewise deemed as a reliable source (in the sense that Woodhall is not) whose information we treat as reliable unless there is reason to believe it to be otherwise. Now, in the case of Anderson there are manifest reasons for questioning what he tells us about the Polish Jew. But the root question, that is to say the question on which all following argument must spring, is whether or not that story is a lie? Or a fabrication, a fiction, a piece of playful fun. Call it what you will. And what we are talking about here is not the detail, but the basic event - the identification. Was there a witness, a suspect and an identification?
Now, it could be a lie and we should always bear this is mind, but is there reason for thinking it is? And in that question there rests an important distinctio, because there are probably a dozen reasons for thinking it could be a lie, but are there any reasons for thinking that it is a lie? Anderson could be so vain that he concocted a story to pretend that he wasn't defeated by the Ripper, but is there evidence of Anderson manipulating the truth for reasons of vanity? And the manipulation has to be on a comparably major scale. I am not aware of such evidence. Where I have been able to test other of Anderson's revelations, they prove to be true - even his claim that Monro knew about his authorship of the Parnell material, which Monro actually denied, is a truth (Monro almost certainly knew, but did not sanction Anderson's actions as Anderson thought). If the scale thus tips in favour of Anderson, as I think it does, then I accept that the identification took place. Where we go from there is another matter. But this isn't a matter of putting great wads of faith in Anderson. It's a simple matter of assessing whether Anderson would invent major events such as writing the Parnell material, about Millen being a British informer, about there being an identification of the Ripper... |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 09 December 2000 - 08:23 am | | Good to see Paul continuing to expound historical methodology with such ease and accuracy. To trained historians like myself who have simply jumped through the hoops of what our teachers told us, it is the more impressive since Paul is self-trained, and has established by personal trial and error the efficacy of these traditional methods.
Stewart - you've insisted at times on the value of your long experience as a police officer. With all due respect, I'd have to suggest that some of the resulting attitudes can become a little bit of a handicap if carried over to historical research. 'Guesses' are not the simple blanket alternative to 'facts'. Where the records of facts are in dispute and it is impossible to reconcile them, the duty of the narrative historian is to suggest what may actually have happened, making minimal alterations to whichever he decides is the less reliable record, and adding as little as possible that is new to either. The fact that Paul and I differ as to which is the preferable account of the ID of Anderson's suspect inevitably rests on argument, and he and I have no difficulty in differing and continuing to respect each other. This would not long remain the case if we accused each other of 'guessing' without some pretty clear evidence to distinguish that disreputable activity from reasoned deduction. To call deduction 'guessing' is to debate the point by the use of deliberately demeaning rhetoric rather than argument.
To say as I have repeatedly done that Anderson was definitely incapable of making deliberate and knowing misstatements of fact to boost his own self-importance in a book written for publication when he was almost seventy is very far from suggesting that he was a plaster saint who was incapable of telling some porkies in the course of a harmless jape when he was in his late twenties or early thirties. It is one of the great surprises of Anderson's memoirs that this rather grimly severe old antiCatholic fanatic and crank, whose granddaughter remembered him as frightening, should have had a lighter side to his life, including such a sense of fun and high jinks in his youth - playing top-hat football in the corridors of the Home Office, forsooth! Of course, I agree that he was dreadfully self-rightewous and self-important, and I have always insisted that he was opinionated and obstinate and could have been wrong. But the kind of selective argument from pieces of text you present tends to turn 'Anderson' into a straw figure whose every word is being hung on as gospel truth by idiot devotees. This is something very different from the responsible decision, after a great deal of study, that he is the 'best source'. (Or, for Paul, was until Swanson emerged, and remains the second best source).
Does your preference for relying exclusively on 'facts' actually preclude you from prioritising sources unless you can find uncontrovertable facts to support one? If so, you have so fettered yourself that you will have a difficult time writing narrative history. Do you agree withe Harry's refusal to prioritise suspects? Surely you agree with me that some, like Prince Albert Victor, have been completely disproven by recorded facts; some, like James Maybrick, are so wildly improbable that there has never been any reason to take them seriously; and some, like Tumblety and Druitt are named by sources so close to the serious investigation that they must themselves be investigated by every historical tool we can bring to bear?
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 09 December 2000 - 08:08 pm | | A quick response to the above posts. Yes I do think that a serious misunderstanding is emerging here. This debate seems to be shifting as we go along. The two points I feel I have made are first that Anderson was capable of lying, he admitted it, and also, amazingly also admitted to doing so under oath. Second that I, and many others I may add, would not treat Anderson as the most reliable historical source on the basis that one or two of the stories he told were basically correct, ergo we have to accept that everything else he says falls into the same category. I do, however, accept that he is a more reliable source than, say, Henry Smith. However, I think, if you both check back, that Martin and Paul have both claimed that Anderson would not deliberately and with intent to deceive, lie. He patently would, and did, if he felt he had to. And this by his own admission.
Also, I think I made it clear that he cannot be simply dismissed. And yes, I agree, that some sort of identification did take place, there was the attempted identification of Sadler by Lawende for a start. Sorry Paul if I have come across as saying that you blindly believe everything Anderson says, for you are too intelligent to do that, and, I know, that you have applied certain caveats to what he said. Having said that, in my opinion to attach priority to what he says, over whatever else has been said, would be a mistake. It could lead to narrow thinking and to the exclusion of other valid material.
Regarding the value of his writings as historical evidence, then I think that I could say that two distinguished historians I know, Phil Sugden, and Alex Chisholm (who has a history degree), I believe, agree with my assessment of Anderson as opposed to Martin and Paul's. No Paul, I am not saying dismiss him out of hand, but neither am I saying that such great import should be attached to his words as both Martin and yourself seem to.
So, it could be argued, there was a witness, Lawende, and there was an attempted identification, Sadler. Around that and other ambient facts, could have been built a story involving fabrication, confusion, or elements of both. I am not suggesting there was, but it is possible. And practical knowledge and procedures dictate that what Swanson claims is totally anomalous. And, in the end reckoning, both of you put more faith in Anderson and Swanson's words than I do, and than Phil Sugden, Alex Chisholm, and many others I could name, do.
Martin, you say you are a trained historian so I will not insult you by arguing the toss with you about historical methodology. Someone like Alex or Phil are much better equipped than I to do that. Your tone with me, I'm afraid, comes across as rather condescending and you seem to be dismissing me as any sort of reliable writer on historical matters. You have described the methodology of historical interpretation and have described the duty of historians to "suggest what may have actually happened, making minimal alterations to whichever he decides is the less reliable record, and adding as little as possible that is new to either." This is all very fine, but it is also very subjective. For if it were a clear cut and obvious matter, then all historians would agree, all would interpret the facts in a similar manner, barring the disagreements such as those you and Paul have, and the interpretations you differ upon, and similar conclusions would be reached.
But do we find this to be the case? No, we don't; for two distinguished historians, Phil and Alex, disagree with you both, and there are many others who also disagree, Melvin Harris, Jim Tully, Nick Connell, or even Keith for that matter. Perhaps I should not quote the views of others, but they have all stated their views in a public forum. Now, I do not intend to argue semantics and personal preferences for suspects, which may or may not colour individuals' reading of the facts, and I do not dimiss what you both say out of hand. There is much, as you both know, that we would all agree upon. To my mind, however, it is the sheer impossible dogmatism of Anderson's pronouncement of a 'definitely ascertained fact' that weakens, rather than strengthens, what he has to say.
I do not, nor do I think I have ever stated such, that I rely exclusively on facts. It can be more accurately stated that I prefer to argue in this open forum upon facts, rather than conjecture, supposition and guesswork. And that does not mean that I think it is wrong to do so. It is just that from past experience that is my preferred option. A reading of some of the past debates clearly show how most such debates conclude with an impasse and often with frustration by one or more of the parties involved. Yes, I do prioritise sources, I would have thought that rather obvious, without resort to incontrovertable facts. For instance, it's obvious, as already stated, that Anderson is a better source than Smith. But before both I would place the written official records. It then follows that I prioritise, where relevant, suspects, but it is here I think that I would differ from the two of you. But, as I you know, so does just about every other author in the field.
So, I am happy to read the informed words of you both, and I do not intend to become disputatious with you. We all obviously agree that all genuine suspects should be researched as far as possible. In fact my own research has brought out new material on Anderson, and I have purchased for my private collection several letters from Anderson's own personal files. In fact, I think I am right in saying that between Nick Connell and myself, and latterly Keith and myself, we have disclosed more new information than has been found for many a year. And it is for that reason, as much as any I suppose, that I am a bit bewildered by your apparent attack on my methods Martin. Still, from me this is the final word, I am sure I have bored everyone to sleep by now.
With all good wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 05:07 am | | Hi Stewart
The two points I feel I have made are first that Anderson was capable of lying, he admitted it, and also, amazingly also admitted to doing so under oath. Second that I, and many others I may add, would not treat Anderson as the most reliable historical source on the basis that one or two of the stories he told were basically correct, ergo we have to accept that everything else he says falls into the same category.
In essence I agree with the two points you have made. Except that in saying that Anderson would not have lied, I am not saying that he was an unhuman paragon of honesty who would never have lied even when he thought there was good and just reason for doing so. I very much doubt that Anderson would have lasted long in his chosen career if he felt compelled to tell the truth about everything. But that isn't the sort of truth-telling I am talking about. I am talking on a much broader level. As I said, Anderson is honest in a sense that Woodhall isn't. Anderson wouldn't have lied in the sense that Woodhall would have done (an 'lie' is being used here as a catch all for embellishment and so forth). We therefore accept what Anderson tells us unless there is reason for thinking otherwise, whereas we do not accept what Woodhall tells us unless there is independent confirmation.
I also don't treat Anderson as the most reliable source. There is a difference between reliable and important. I don't consider Anderson any more or less reliable than Littlechild but I do think Anderson is more important. I think this because Anderson is telling us what he believes to be a fact, whereas Littlechild was advancing a theory, and because Anderson knew about Tumblety and appears to have preferred the evidence against the Polish Jew. Since Anderson posessed infinitely more information than I do, I bow to his opinion rather than modern speculative argument. But that does not mean that I am closed to the arguments favouring other suspects. All I am doing is prioritising., which is what we have all done. It doesn't make me blinkered to the value or worth of other suspects. Indeed, as I have said, I, almost alone, believe the witness was Schwartz and that the suspect killed Elizabeth Stride. Since Stride may not have been a Ripper victim, I accept the very real possibility that Anderson was wrong, that his suspect was not the Ripper and that the Ripper was one of the other suspects or somebody as yet unheard of and who may forever remain so. This was why I defended Druitt on these Boards not so long ago.
Also, I am not suggesting that because two of the stories Anderson tells us are true that he is therefore 'the most reliable' source and I am quite horrified to think that this is an impression I might have given. All I am saying is that when we are presented with an historical document containing information for which it is our sole source, the only way anyone has of assessing the probability of the truth of that information is by checking the accuracy of other claims in the document. Having said this, I am, of course, aware that assorted other factors, such as the nature and purpose of the document, come into it as well. Also, I am not saying that the unverifiable data has to be correct simply because the verifiable data is correct (we're dealing with probabilities here, not hard and fast facts). In the case of Anderson his stories where they can be checked are broadly correct (even down to - and most tellingly so, in my opinion - his assertion that Monro sanctioned his authorship of the Parnell material; a view not merely reached by myself after seeing the Anderson files, but also by historian J.A. Cole in his biography of Henri Le Caron). Thus, as is common practice, if a source is deemed generally and overall broadly reliable, we accept what it tells unless there is reason for not doing so. There clearly is reason for doing so in the case of the identification story, hence all the debate and disagreement. But do we dismiss the core of the story? It appears not, for so far everyone seems agreed that it happened.
All I am saying, therefore, is that overall Anderson appears a generally reliable source whose story about the identification (if not the details and his conclusion about the suspect being the Ripper) is likely to be broadly true. I personally think he genuinely came to believe that the suspect was the Ripper, which for me gives Anderson a research priority over other commentators because Anderson was (a) better informed than I am and (b) thought the evidence against his suspect better than the evidence against other suspects. I do not expect everyone to prioritise in the same way, but it would be interesting, though probably disturbingly arcane, to hear what both Phil and Alex think to see how far removed from Martin and myself they actually are. From what Phil Sugden has written, for example, it would seem that he is in general agreement insofar as he accepts that there was an identification. He merely weighs the details differently and advances the theory based thereon that Anderson's conclusion was self-delusion in old age.
This whole business seems to me to very closely parallel the argument about the birthplace of Nell Gwynne. There is good evidence indicating that she was born in London. Unfortunately there is equally good evidence that she was born in Oxford. There's also good evidence that she was born in Hereford. There is general agreement about the reliability of the basic raw data, but historians weigh the data differently. We do exactly the same. It just seems to me than Martin and I are being credited with rather more firmly held beliefs than we actually have. We all seem to agree that Anderson is reliable insofar as there was an identification. What we disagree about is what the identification was and how Anderson's conclusions are to be interpreted.
Finally, I hesitate to speak for Martin, so apologies to you both if what I am about to say isn't correct, but I know that Martin has huge respect for you, Stewart, and I'm certain he didn't intend to give the impression that you are in any sense unreliable as a writer on historical matters. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 09:01 am | | Paul
You keep coming back to the same statement "Anderson believed to be a fact".
This may or may not be worth contesting, but why do we accept his statement as being 'his belief that it is a fact'?.
Human nature has taught us that there are cases where people who are not sure of some detail will take the assertive approach in order to convince 'you' of a fact that they themselves are uncertain of.
In this case we have Anderson feeling culpable, or at least feeling that he is/was held culpable in the failure to apprehend the murderer. So, he takes the assertive approach and tells the world that "it was a fact that this was the Ripper". When, in reality, he was only trying to convince you, the reader, that although he 'knew' who the Ripper was, it was beyond his control to apprehend him. Therefore, what Anderson is really trying to say is, "Although it would appear the murderer beat ME, he really didn't, because I had his number, but it was beyond my control to bring him to justice"
Anderson tells us it was "A definitely ascertained fact", not because HE believed it to be so.....but because, in a face saving gesture, he wants YOU to believe it is so.
This, if you understand my drift, is a possible alternative explanation for his statement. And so long as it is a reasonable alternative, then your belief in Anderson 'thinking it was a fact' is not certain, therefore contestable.
Afterall, we do know Anderson had this air of self importance that he had to defend.
Makes sense?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 09:42 am | | Dear Stewart,
I am very sorry that you find my tone condescending, but not really surprised, as the tone of my letters and postings is likely to follow the tone to which they are responding. And I have felt for some time that when pointing out things you have found on the files which add to and alter the perception of the Ripper history I arrived at and published more than ten years ago, you have been lecturing and hectoring me as if I didn't know my business. I mentioned this to you in passing in private correspondence last spring, but did not raise it again as you seemed to me to be offended by the suggestion, and I assume it was and is completely unconscious and not (like the observations of one of the other experts you cite) deliberately, let alone maliciously, offensive.
(One outside observer with no particular interest in the Ripper felt the same about 'The Lodger', by the way, and asked me when it came out, 'Who is this man who praises you fulsomely in the introduction and then completely rubbishes your work in the text?' I am sure you were quite unaware that your perfectly justifiable disagreements with my conclusions could be read as so disparaging, and I said at once that you normally have an extremely forthright manner. But it can be and be seen as offensive).
I might add that I find similar completely unmalicious, unthinking but offensive condescension in Philip Sugden's treatment of my work on p.401 of the hardback edition of 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper'. I had no idea of Alex Chisholm's background when I responded to his posting on this board, but you will see that my response to observations and suggested corrections of my thinking that come without any tone of one-upmanship find me kissing the rod and promising to look further into the matter.
This is the more regrettable as to a very large extent we are in agreement, and (unlike Philip) you make quite clear your grounds for disagreeing with my arguments.
Now to the actual areas of our current disagreement here. There are different sorts of historian. My training was as a literary historian, specialising in the Victorian era. As such, like you, I always gave first priority to official documents, and one of my main pieces of work was identifying many of the Blue Book sources pillaged by Disraeli for the background of his novel 'Sybil'. From this I moved to narrative history, first by writing a number of popular coffee-table biographies of writers. And in this field it is essential for the historian to decide how his narrative is going to conform with sources of all kinds where they conflict. It is also necessary to make subjective decisions about the personalities and characters involved. One of the pieces of work on the Ripper in which I take most pride is rescuing Charles Warren from being the butt of all commentators, and insising that he had his merits as well as his faults. I am sure Philip and Alex would agree without hesitation that to reach sensible conclusions about the sort of man one is trying to describe, one should read as much by and about him as one can. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the field of Ripper research has performed this duty as fully as I have with respect to Anderson. Most of the people setting out to prove him a liar have done so because they need his testimony out of the way in order to put forward alternative candidates for the Ripper. This parti pris position is one from which neither Paul Begg nor I started, and I note with pleasure that the equally neutral Douglas, Olshaker and the late Bill Eckert all agreed with our postiion after surveying the field. Philip Sugden undertook his work with equal initial impartiality. The weakness of his ultimate dismissal of Anderson, in my view, comes from the inevitability that he had not the opportunity (given time constraints and the relative marginality of Anderson to his main purpose) to study him in depth. Hence the impressionistic re-creation of his character on pp.420-421 which contains a lot of truth, but does not actually warrant the conclusion that he was acting on 'selective and faulty memory'. (Incidentally, Philip of course accepts that there really was a Kosminski and an identification of some sort which Anderson was remembering. I'm not sure whether your remarks to the effect that there was a witness - Lawende - and an ID - of Sadler - is meant to imply that this later event was what Anderson was recalling? I should certainly dispute this strongly, and suspect that it's just hasty writing such as we all practise frequently on these boards which leaves that impression).
Now, your precise remarks on Anderson's veracity:
'I believe that he was quite happy to lie if he felt that the circumstances warranted it and he personally deemed it alright to do so.' yes - up to a point, Lord Copper. Readers are more likely to take the casual 'happy to lie' as the key to Anderson's character, and overlook the restrictions implied in 'if he felt that the circumstances warranted it'. However much we agree that he was boastful and self-justifying, and in those respects probably self-deceiving, I have yet to see a smidgeon of evidence that this would lead him to write deliberate self-boosting untruths in his memoirs.
I don't see anything untoward or egocentric in his enjoying the fact that people he didn't know held him in esteem. I am delighted myself when I find that taxi-drivers or people met in other chance encounters enjoy my broadcasts, and I hope you will soon be (if you aren't already) enjoying the well-deserved admiration of readers you have never met.
It seems to me an extraordinary distortion of psychological reality to label Anderson's, possibly self-deceiving conviction that a witness - (probably, I agree with you, Lawende) - had seen the murderer 'a lie', on the grounds that no murderer was caught and convicted. Is this, Stewart, a part of your police officer's training, leading you to be very careful about labelling a criminal unless he has been tagged by a court-accepted 'result'? I'm sure we're both well aware of the extent to which Anderson had no such professional background, but came into the role of what he himself described as 'a detective' from a background of legal training (with little, if any, practise at the bar) and spy-management under the cover of civil sevice administration.
Your most serious charge is that
'Anderson was also, although not happy about it, prepared to lie under oath when it was deemed to be part of an accepted police procedure.'
Here I think your own integrity possibly leads you toward a dangerous conclusion. I accept that you would not lie under oath. It is just possible that, serving in a rural county police force, your experience tells you the same is true of most of your colleagues. But for many of us in the lay world, the willingness of police to perjure themselves to get a result is familar and deeply shocking. (Agreed, PACE is doing a lot to try and prevent this). Familiarity seems to the outside world to have bred very considerable contempt for the exceptionally high standard of truth required by the courts among both villains and law-enforcers. An eminent QC once remarked to me that his job was coming to disgust him as he was constantly purveying the lies his clients told him and following their instructions to denigrate the arresting officers; and those officers were responding by lying their socks off, so that the whole ideal of a rule of law based on truthful testimony was perpetually flouted.
I don't know whether such a state of affairs prevailed in the courts in Anderson's day. I don't have the advantage of owning a copy of Anderson's book - (I read it fifteen years ago in the British Library) - and I don't recall the circusmtances under which he unwillingly lied under oath. (It wouldn't, I imagine, be in court). But I can easily believe that he found a situation where an oath had to be taken that everybody else thought was a matter of form, and he scrupulously felt was in fact perjury. And he wouldn't like it one little bit, though as a conservative and conformist character (apart from his religious beliefs) he would go along with it provided he felt it was doing no harm to anyone.
I have no doubt he would have felt it harmed the world to tell it complete falsehoods about Jack the Ripper, and, indeed, felt that saying what he did might do some good, provided it was the truth as he saw it, in that it might dissuade the public from taking leave of its senses whenever there was a big murder hunt, and it might move the British police closer to that French system, untrammelled by Habeas Corpus, whch he admired. Neither of these desirable goals would be helped in any way by his lying.
All this you apparently agree with as you say,
'I appreciate that what Martin, and Paul, are saying is that they feel that Anderson would not deliberately record such deception as fact in his books.'
But when you immediately add, ' I think that, as he admits to lying when he thought it appropriate, then we cannot just assume that all he writes is the ungilded truth and unvarnished fact.' Do you see that by doing this you are actually setting up Paul and me as straw men? Neither of us has ever said or suggested that what Anderson writes is 'ungilded and unvarnished fact'? Given that I have consistently stated, from the very first words I published on the subject, 'He might have been wrong. He was always opinionated'; given that Paul explicitly thinks he was wrong and Swanson was right, what can your colourful words possibly do except demean and diminish our position? You may not literally say that we treat his every word as 'ungilded and unvarnished fact', but that is how most readers will take the sense of what you say. And it is more than condescending: it implicitly accuses us of naive stupidity.
I don't think Paul or I have the slightest quarrel with people who disagree with us about the priority to be given to the Anderson and Swanson evidence. We don't feel outrageously frustrated that Shirley Harrison or Feldy have remained completely impervious to our arguments. (I admit to a note of irritation creeping into my postings when it seemed that Harry Mann wasn't paying a blind bit of attention to everything Paul wrote - sorry, Harry). But either of us may get annoyed if our rational arguments are treated as though they were irrational flights of fancy. Paul, in particular, who has never committed himself to saying the Ripper has probably been discovered, may be justifiably annoyed at anybody else seizing a moral high ground and effectively saying, 'I only deal in facts. I'm more neutral than you.'
These are our precise grounds of difference. I agree with Paul that your work deserves the utmost respect. 'The Ultimate Source Book' is the ultimate essential publication for everyone working seriously on the Ripper. There is no reason at all for us to quarrel over your feeling that Anderson/Swanson should not be prioritised above - whom? - You don't say, but I suspect Littlechild. We can agree to differ without aggression.
But, please, don't let your often stated distaste or contempt for 'semantics' blind you to the effects of your own words, and please accept my apologies for the offence caused by my responding in kind.
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 11:22 am | | Hi Jon
Yes, you make perfect sense. But what supportive evidence are you offering? What other examples do we have of Anderson inventing salves for his ego?
Anderson seems to be saying that there was an identification and that he believed the identified suspect was Jack the Ripper. He may have been lying, he may have been mistaken, he may have been misremembering, he may even have meant exactly what he says. If you are going to argue that Anderson meant something different to what he says then you have to support it with evidence, otherwise it is no more than one of several possibilities - a possibility of which we should be aware, but which is yet to have substance.
All I am saying is that Anderson says it was a fact and until there is evidence to the contrary then we have little real alternative but to accept that this is what Anderson believed it to be. In this context, Anderson's apparent preference for the Polish Jew over other suspects about whom he knew the evidence gives the Polish Jew priority in my opinion. I am not, however, attaching undue worth to Anderson's testimony. Or, at least, I don't think I am. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 11:34 am | | Dear Paul,
I find little reason to pursue argument with you when I feel that you have stated what you think and reasonably adhere to the known facts.
Dear Martin,
I find that your last post is overly aggressive and cannot be allowed to stand without a response from me. I too respond in a like manner when things are said to me that I feel are unjustified.
It is obviously a personal feeling of yours that I have been 'lecturing and hectoring' you. For goodness sake the very few exchanges we have had in the past can hardly amount to bullying on my part when I have only ever tried to correct past errors. Your comment that my corrections are to do with 'the perception of the Ripper history' that you 'arrived at and published more than ten years ago' seems odd. The time factor in this case should make no difference for the corrections I have made are from the self-same files that were open and available to you when you wrote and published more than ten years ago.
You refer, in your second paragraph, to what "one outside observer with no particular interest in the Ripper" felt about what was said in The Lodger said, i.e. "Who is this man who praises you fulsomely in the introduction and then completely rubbishes your work in the text?" This 'outside observer,' for the benefit of our readers, is your own brother, and do you recall what you said to me about this when recounting his words to me at the Norwich conference?" He certainly, according to you, did not use the words cited by you here when referring to me. It was rather more obscene than that, do you wish me to repeat those words, used by you in front of witnesses, at the conference? It was a comment by you that left me totally baffled and not a little disturbed. Anyone who cares to read our book will see that your involved theory was summarised in our book and the conclusion was that you had made "A bold claim with no evidence to support it." Obviously you think this is a total rubbishing of your theory, but, in fact, it was merely a total disagreement with your theory. You have treated the theories of others yourself in a similar manner, and if you disagree with our statement please tell what piece of solid evidence you have to substantiate your theory and which allows you to make the bold claim that he was definitely 'Jack the Ripper'? This claim, incidentally, I recall you making on national television when you stated there is no mystery and we know who Jack the Ripper was, he was a Polish Jew lunatic.
For your information, when The Lodger was written I did not want any mention made in it of other suspects. However, our publisher required that we did look at the other main suspects, and that we dismissed them in favour of our own theory. Now I needn't tell you about 'publishers' dictates' as you probably know more about them than do I. Paul Gainey and I wrote about half the chapters each in that book, and the suspects chapter was one I preferred to leave to Paul to write. However, I fully accept that as co-author you accept joint responsibility for the whole, and I contributed to and agreed this chapter (albeit I did not want it included). There is, as far as I am concerned, nothing untoward in our dismissal of your theory. Indeed, any author proposing the identity of the Ripper when no solid evidence whatsoever exists, must expect an attack on his theorising from those with different ideas or theories. We have all experienced that.
In writing my Tumblety book I was merely doing what had to be done. Indeed, as you know, had different circumstances prevailed you would have been my co-author! And I would have welcomed that and considered it to be an honour for me to be working with you on a book as a co-author. I had found a piece of unique historical information in the Littlechild letter, and it was obvious that there was material for a new book on a genuine suspect and not a mad invention with no historical basis. And remember, I was interested in the case many years (at least thirty) before I ever heard of Tumblety. He was and is not the raison d'etre for my interest. My work on him was completed and I moved on. I consider that I am very objective in my writings on the case and Tumblety exerts no influence over my writing and reasoning. I bear all factors in mind and am happy, and always was, to acknowledge that no solid evidence exists for him either.
As regards 'prioritising the police officers' writings' you say you suspect I prefer Littlechild. Certainly Littlechild categorically stated that "Anderson only thought he knew" but it is not him I have specifically in mind. For I regard any suspect named as viable by a contemporary police officer as equally important and worthy of further research, hopefully until they are conclusively dismissed. This despite the fact that the reliability of those officers' words are bound to vary. And we all have to bear in mind the fact that, quite possibly, not one of them was the killer. As I have stated the identity of the 'Ripper' cannot have been a 'definitely ascertained fact' therefore a more modest proposal of a candidate, in my opinion, indicates a more open mind on the behalf of the person making the statement.
Yes, I prefer to deal in facts, and to that end all my work since my first book has been carefully written to avoid tendentiousness and bias. For absolutely anyone writing a book about a suspect cannot fail, even if it is because of publishers' demands, to be somewhat biased and selective in their presentation of the material available. I would hasten to add that this should not include deliberate deception or untruths, accusations I would not level against you or Paul. But we have all seen it in some other books in the past.
I think that this discussion has already reached the level of disagreement that neither of us should be indulging in here. People must be really tired of seeing petty disputes between Ripper authors but at least this one has sprung, I believe, from a desire by all of us to reach a better level of concensus and a better idea and understanding of that complex character Anderson. By the way, it is Anderson himself who recites the tale of being unhappy about giving evidence in a case of burglary which amounted to a 'minor perjury.' It is too lengthy and complex to discuss here, it involves accepted police procedures of the time, to go into.
You and Paul have done too much good work to be dismissed as 'straw men' no more would I accuse you of 'naive stupidity.' I merely feel that you accord too much importance to Anderson's words, but that certainly does not amount to the accusations you suggest I am making about being 'straw men' or stupidly naive. It was I, after all, who applauded both of you in the opening of my piece in Camille Wolff's 1995 offering Who Was Jack the Ripper. I still stand by those words and repeat them here: -
"One of the few bonuses of the centenary 'madness' was the meeting of the three researchers/authors, Begg, Fido and Skinner who were to usher in a new era of informed and meticulously researched work on the case. They proved there was still much to be added, and identified the numerous corrigendum that existed. 'The Jack the Ripper A to Z' appeared. My interest was rekindled. Was the identity of the unknown Victorian killer forever to remain a mystery? They indicated perhaps not."
Hardly the words of one who thinks you a man of straw or stupidly naive. And my words above are true and correct. So it grieves me to find a disputatious exchange building here with you. I have known you many years Martin and have to admit a certain fondness for you. So with these points made I herewith withdraw from any further disputation and, for my part, apologise for any hurt you feel I have inflicted.
With every good wish,
Stewart |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 03:04 pm | | Dear Stewart,
Your apology is accepted without reservation, and mine is reiterated. I do not forget your kindness and generosity to Keith and me when we first met and you introduced us to key surviving witnesses to the Peasenhall affair, and gave us the benefit of your own work. And I have consistently experienced similar kindness and friendliness whenever we have met or spoken. It is with no personal animus that I am pursuing this discussion of what you have written, and what effect this must have on my reputation.
I am sure you are quite simply unaware if the effect your words have. You say in two consecutive sentences: 'I appreciate that what Martin, and Paul, are saying is that they feel that Anderson would not deliberately record such deception as fact in his books. I think that, as he admits to lying when he thought it appropriate, then we cannot just assume that all he writes is the ungilded truth and unvarnished fact.' Evidently it is not apparent to you that many if not most readers will infer that Paul and I think that 'all [Anderson] writes is ungilded truth and unvarnished fact'. To think any such thing would certainly be naive and stupid, even though you may not wish to have implied anything of the kind. The words have a very different impact from your perfectly acceptable observation that you think Paul and I 'place too much importance on Anderson's words', which is perfectly fair comment.
Similarly, when you now say, 'the corrections I have made are from the self-same files that were open and available to you when you wrote and published more than ten years ago,' the uninformed reader, and possibly you yourself, may think that our research opportunities were identical and I was culpable in not having observed (say) that the date of Warren's autograph addition to the memo appointing Swanson fell within the period when Anderson was out of the country, and that I should have drawn inferences accordingly. But the circumstances were very different. The enormous quantity of Ripper work of the last ten years had not been undertaken. The sort of research tools now available didn't exist - and even Alexander Kelly's Bibliography (Edn 1) was out of print, missing from the British library, and unavailable to me. You entered on the major work leading to the 'Ultimate Source Book' with, as you observe, thirty years on and off research behind you, the financial security of a pension, and as far as I know, as much time as you needed to complete the work. I started my work on the Ripper as a struggling freelance writer who had read McCormick, Cullen, Odell, Farson, Rumbelow, Knight and Whittington-Egan, more or less as they came out, and in preparing the Murder Guide to London, had read The Times reports on the case, and the memoirs of the senior police officers involved, (both autobiographical and acts of filial piety). From these I had noted that Anderson was obviously not, as some former writers asserted, a liar and boaster trying to boost his force's reputation without any justification, and that his 'Polish Jew' was apparently Macnaghten's Kominsky. On a basis of these observations and the suggestion that anyone who searched the asylum records would find him there and thus have a more plausibke suspect than had ever been proposed, I was given a commission to go and find him. (It wasn't my wish orintention to do this work when I first approchaed publishers with teh suggestion of a coffee table book on the Ripper, surveying the crimes, the police involved, and the suspects). The contract was drawn up at the beginning of February and the book had to be completed by the end of September! In that time I had to read the local and as many other national papers as I could, search workhouse and infirmary and asylum records, examine the official files, trace surviving descendants of people I came across who seemed likely to be Anderson's susppect, consult with any Ripper experts I ccould contact, and write my text. I didn't have the funds for expensive travelling research: fortunately I was living in London at the time. I simply didn't have time to look to any HO as opposed to MEPO files, nor to scrutinise areas that did not have a manifest bearing on the immediate lines of enquiry I had set myself. Thus, as you may have noticed, my work has never made any attempt to add to our knowledge about the victims. Under the circumstances, I actually take huge pride in the amount of new information I brought to central areas of the case, and still treasure the letters from Alexander Kelly and Joe Gaute which expressed their surprise that anyone had been able to add so much to a case which they felt had long bogged down into a series of repetitive ruts.
Now, you feel that Paul Gainey was justified in writing off my conclusions as 'A bold claim with no evidence to support it'. Again, I feel no animus against Paul, but looking back to see what he had in fact written, I was appalled! My work is wildly travestied and distorted in the two paragraphs devoted to it. It makes the familiar debasing claim that I serached the records, found Kosminski, saw that he didn't fit, and went haring off to find some one to replace him. I trust I have explained often enough on the boards why this is not only untrue, but would have been profoundly unprofessional. You yourself, I believe, remarked on the boards somewhere that I found Kosminsky 'by accident', which some one as touchy as I might feel to be an uncharitable way of putting it after I'd been looking without success for months, and had concluded that if he wasn't in the asylums by 1890 he simply couldn't exist under that name. (An erroneous conclusion, but one justified if it was still assumed that Kosminsky was Anderson's suspect). After placing my discovery of Kaminsky in the wrong place, after my discovery of Kosminsky, Paul goes on to say, 'Fido then theorized that Kaminsky had been incarcerated under a different name,' which again is completely untrue and would have been a ludicrous speculation. I went back to square one - Anderson's words, which I regarded as the best source - and looked for a poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel who went into the asylum after the murders ended. I considered a number of people; collected a great many names, and only took in the significance of David Cohen's date of arrest and type of illness when I stopped blocking him out mentally because his occupation didn't match my expectation of finding a leather worker or shoemaker. And then, and then only did I notice that his age was given as identical with Kaminsky's, and indulge the risky speculation that they might be one and the same. And, subsequently, by remarkable coincidence, Kosminsky turned out to be the same age as well.
Of course my work can be made to look like reckless speculation and guesswork if it is recklessly misdescribed!
To add insult to injury, Paul goes on, 'Phil Sugden's research has revealed that those senior officers writing about Kosminski; if Aaron Kosminski made mistakes about the most basic of facts.' (sic). First, Phil Sugden's research didn't reveal that. Don Rumbelow and I knew that Swanson's marginalia were all wrong about Kosminski as soon as we saw them, and I had published the fact and the details long before Phil Sugden's research appeared. So had Paul Begg. Nor is there any proof that Anderson was in any way wrong about him, or that Macnaghten was necessarily wrong (although his reference to the City Pc or beat officer near Mitre Square sounds implausible). In fact, Swanson's demonstrable errors about Kosminsky, which exactly fit the facts about Cohen, became an important confirmatory part of my theory, and are definitely historical evidence which has to be assessed, whether you assess it as Paul Begg does or as I do.
With a travesty like that in front of him, I'm not suprised that my brother used strong language! I don't remember it. I'm very sorry if it shocked you. I have no objection whatever to your repeating it if you want to. And, like Clive of India, I am amazed at my own moderation in never having taken up the matter of p.167 of 'the Lodger' before!
But, Stewart, I repeat this is all done without personal animus. And I hope you and Paul gainey will both be able to take it in good part.
Jon - I feel that Paul is letting you beg a question that I would challenge. You say, 'we have Anderson feeling culpable, or at least feeling that he is/was held culpable in the failure to apprehend the murderer'. Do we? I think we have Anderson feeling that his force is and was often held to have 'failed' to solve crimes when in fact they knew the answers perfectly well, but were unable to bring legal evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to court. (The same thing obtains today). I see no reason to think he was assertive and defensive any more than I am when I see Oxford University accused of discriminating against students from state schools, and remember the frequent debates on Balliol's governing body in the 'sixties as we unanimously struggled to find means to persuade the state schools to let us see their good candidates in the same proportions as the private sector did. I don't think Anderson was wriggling or overstating any more than those police officers today who call the Crown Prosecution Service the 'Criminals' Protection Society', because they are annoyed at the number of charges the CPS lawyers won't let them bring.
But it all depends on how we read the intent and possibly unconscious connotations of his words.
With all good wishes,
Martin F |
|
|
|
|
