SPE's Worldview

[How Brown]

I sort of appropriated this from a thread on Casebook...I hope SPE won't mind...but its a terrific post and one which should be read.
********************************



An unsolved murder is just that, unsolved. In not one of the 'Whitechapel' murder cases, from Smith in April 1888 to Coles in February 1891, was the offender identified although, obviously, there was more than one murderer at work. Where no hard evidence has been adduced, and no offender has confessed, it is not possible to positively identify a common hand for x, y, or z murders. That said certain facts should be obvious -

1. Each murder should be treated as an individual case and examined on its own merits.

2. No murder in the series should be assumed to have been committed by any particular suspect. That said it must be recognised that no hard evidence existed against any given contemporary suspect.

3. To treat a fixed number of that series of murders as having been committed by a common hand will influence all subsequent theorising and affect the conclusions reached.

To rigidly adhere to these criteria in a case with minimal evidence anyway, and for which no hard evidence is going to emerge at this remove in time, will prevent positive identification of any suspect, known or unknown.

Such ideas are unpopular with both the theorist and the fantasist - for they appear to stifle progress in seeking a solution to the case. And therein lies the rub - the case is incapable of solution.

So what are we left with? Only theorising, hypothesis and opinion I'm afraid. Accept it - it's a fact. We may certainly add to our peripheral and tangential knowledge and clear up minor mysteries in the case. Indeed, this has been the main thrust of Ripper studies for many years, certainly throughout the 'Internet years.'

Also it is possible internalise as much relevant information as is possible and to make informed and common sense deductions from what we have. From this we may arrive at our own, individual, conclusions. We may decide upon which of the murders have been committed by the Ripper, which of the known suspects is the most viable and which of the known facts are the most relevant and reliable. We may also decide what source material is the best. All this should be tempered by certain caveats.

1. No conclusion or opinion so arrived at is fact.

2. An open mind should be kept with regard to the conclusions and opinions reached and flexibility of thought that is receptive to new information and ideas.

3. Common sense and the rule of Ockham's Razor should prevail.

I have been accused in the past of being empirical and to a degree that may be true. Having been a police officer for nearly 30 years, and having studied this case for over 45 years, such influences cannot be ignored. For nearly all my working life evidence, law, and police procedure has been my bread and butter. But the greatest aid to any police officer (and as a tutor constable I personally instructed over 60 probationer constables) is common sense.

This all boils down to my own personal standpoint. First I fully accept that every individual has his or her own methods, ideas and preference for what they get out of the field of Ripper studies. I do not expect anyone to blindy accept what I say nor to think the way that I do. But personally speaking, and with regard to points raised above, I should like to finish by saying the following.

I do not like the term 'the canonical five' but I do agree that it has a certain 'convenience' when describing the five victims 'positively' identified by Macnaghten. In my opinion, based mainly on modus operandi, I believe that only Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes appear to be the common victims of a single killer. That does not mean that I reject Tabram, Stride and Kelly as Ripper victims, merely that the evidence in those cases is less compelling.

I have heard all the arguments over the years, all the debates, all the theories (daft and otherwise), all the hypotheses, &c. and I don't need some tyro to come along and tell me what is what. I have lost count of the times I have heard or read the ridiculous claim that 'Jack the Ripper' has been identified - all have fallen short of proof positive.

It is not boasting to say that I have the largest collection of Ripper books, files and material in the world (I am happy to hear from anyone who challenges that claim) and, therefore, almost all that is available I have to hand. I have tried to assist others working in the field whenever I can but this can become onerous. For years I have worked closely with Richard Whittington-Egan and Donald Rumbelow and have been encouraged, and advised, by my good friend Philip Sugden as well as the three pioneers of modern, more scholarly, Ripper research, Paul Begg, Martin Fido and my close friend Keith Skinner.

All that said, I am not an all-knowing Ripper oracle without peer and impervious to challenge. In fact, at times I grow quite sick of it all. Basically, I am a Ripper enthusiast (how I hate that word in this context) who happens to have written a few books on the subject - more by luck than judgement.

Finally a word on suspects. We shall never know who Jack the Ripper was. I am happy to state that as a fact. What we can do, though, is to read all that is available, listen to all the arguments for and against, and then reach our own personal opinion on who he most likely was or the sort of person that he was. Research will continue to produce more peripheral information that may influence these ideas and this is the biggest appeal and goal in 'Ripperology.'

[How Brown]

Allow me to just mention that in our Case, we are faced,as we all know or should know, with incomplete data.

Imagine purchasing and then setting up a crib for your newborn child with 1/3rd of the necessary and not so necessary pieces missing.

Many of us would immediately return the crib and the box and holler for our money back.

But we don't do that in Ripperology. We'll just keep plugging along.:boxing:

In fact, the plugging along by Messrs. Riordan,Spallek,Wood, and Hutchinson just over the last year are very encouraging.:kiss:

[Tim Riordan]

I think I'd agree with both posts. A good friend of mine, who is generally acknowledged as the "world expert" in his field, once gave a reporter a good perspective. The reporter asked what it felt like to be the expert in the field. He told him that "In my field, there are no experts - just aging students." We can progrssively define more features of the black box but the internal workings of the box must remain unknown.

Best,

Tim

[SPE]

Allow me to just mention that in our Case, we are faced,as we all know or should know, with incomplete data.
Imagine purchasing and then setting up a crib for your newborn child with 1/3rd of the necessary and not so necessary pieces missing.
Many of us would immediately return the crib and the box and holler for our money back.
But we don't do that in Ripperology. We'll just keep plugging along.:boxing:
In fact, the plugging along by Messrs. Riordan,Spallek,Wood, and Hutchinson just over the last year are very encouraging.:kiss:

Thank you for the kind words How. Yes there are some great individuals working in the field, those you mention being amongst them.

But there are many others who add greatly to our overall knowledge and understanding, some unsung and unpublished, who in their own way add much. Many are to be found here and over on the Casebook. I have great admiration for many and it would be unfair to list names. I have told many of them that I admire their work.

Many individuals make their own unique contribution to the case, even those who may not come up with new information but cause us to look at things in a new way or put interesting new interpretations on known facts.

I certainly don't wish to put anyone off research nor to dampen enthusiasm. And I do wish to assist serious students of the case whenever I might be able to do so. They keep this subject alive.

[A.P. Wolf]

Although SPE can be a bit of a prickly pear at times, I have always admired his sense of purpose and his state of being, a sort of constant in an ever shifting world where we are left with not much to cling to, apart from his common sense and his no-nonsense attitude when it comes to the facts of the matter.
He has a single fault, and that is an inability to walk away from his younger days when Tumblety was king, for this causes him to stumble today...and my wish is that he could be what he really is today, a master, and dismiss yesterday as the stuff of youth.

[Pilgrim]

In view of the foregoing*, I have to say that I am very confident (http://www.casebook.org/authors/interviews/stewart_evans.1.html) that Dr Tumblety and 'Jack the Ripper' were one and the same, however I do know that it is unlikely that I will ever be able to prove it conclusively. The mystery will live on. But I do say, just how many coincidences do you need before you realise that this man has a lot to answer to?

Stewart P. Evans
November 5th, 1996While opinions are unreflective and external, convictions—which are more akin to belief than opinion—are the result of extensive reflection and invariably concern things to which one feels closely tied. Like opinions that have entrenched themselves to the point of becoming actual claims, convictions are felt to be definitive, beyond modification. However, when I claim that nothing can change my conviction, I must either affirm that I have already anticipated all possible future scenarios and no possible event can change my conviction, or affirm that whatever events do occur—anticipated or unanticipated—they will not shake my conviction. The first possibility is impossible. The second possibility is based on a decision, a decision to remain constant whatever may come. However, upon reflection such a decision seems as over-confidant as the claim to have anticipated the future. By what right can I affirm that my inner conviction will not change in any circumstance? To do so is to imply that, in the future, I will cease to reflect on my conviction. It seems that all I am able to say is that my conviction is such that, at the present moment, I cannot imagine an alteration in it.

Belief is akin to conviction; it is, however, distinguished by its object. Marcel insists in many places that proper use of the term “belief” applies not to things “that” we believe, but to things “in which” we believe. Belief is not “belief that…” but is “belief in…” Belief that might be better characterized as a conviction rather than a belief; however, to believe in something is to extend credit to it, to place something at the disposal of that in which we believe. The notion of credit placed at the disposal of the other is another way of speaking about disponibilité. “I am in no way separable from that which I place at the disposal of this X… Actually, the credit I extend is, in a way, myself. I lend myself to X. We should note at once that this is an essentially mysterious act” (Marcel 1951a, p. 134). This is what distinguishes conviction from belief. Conviction refers to the X, takes a position with regard to X, but does not bind itself to X. While I have an opinion, I am a belief—for belief changes the way I am in the world, changes my being. We can now see how belief refers to the other, and how it is connected to disponibilité: belief always applies to “personal or supra-personal reality” (Marcel 1951a, p. 135). It always involves a thou to whom I extend credit—a credit that puts myself at the disposal of the thou—and thus arises the problem of fidelity.

Opinion, Conviction, Belief. (http://www.science.uva.nl/%7Eseop/entries/marcel/#12)

~~~Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory.

[Stephen Thomas]

.....
convictions are felt to be definitive, beyond modification. However, when I claim that nothing can change my conviction, I must either affirm that I have already anticipated all possible future scenarios and no possible event can change my conviction, or affirm that whatever events do occur—anticipated or unanticipated—they will not shake my conviction. The first possibility is impossible. The second possibility is based on a decision, a decision to remain constant whatever may come. However, upon reflection such a decision seems as over-confidant as the claim to have anticipated the future. By what right can I affirm that my inner conviction will not change in any circumstance? To do so is to imply that, in the future, I will cease to reflect on my conviction. It seems that all I am able to say is that my conviction is such that, at the present moment, I cannot imagine an alteration in it.




Very true, Pilgrim, the last sentence especially.

[SPE]

In view of the foregoing*, I have to say that I am very confident (http://www.casebook.org/authors/interviews/stewart_evans.1.html) that Dr Tumblety and 'Jack the Ripper' were one and the same, however I do know that it is unlikely that I will ever be able to prove it conclusively. The mystery will live on. But I do say, just how many coincidences do you need before you realise that this man has a lot to answer to?
Stewart P. Evans
November 5th, 1996

This remark was made 13 years ago and I stated that I was 'very confident' in expressing that opinion, with, I note, the caveat that I felt it very unlikely that I would ever be able to prove it.

I still find many of the coincidences very interesting. However, the accusation then that I was a 'Tumblety man' through and through may have been truer then than it would be now. I have not been involved in Tumblety research since then and have concentrated since on objectivity and overall knowledge of the case. Having a fixed suspect can limit your view and areas of research, something I do not wish to do.

Others have now taken on the 'Tumblety mantle' and know a lot more about him than I do. In writing a book about a suspect you cannot be totally objective, selectivity being one thing that must be employed. It's easy to criticise a suspect theory.

[Robert Linford]

Never mind Tumblety, Stewart - where do you stand on Gabriel Marcel and Thomas Kuhn? :)

[How Brown]

Thanks very much for the comments,Mr. E.

If a researcher/theorist doesn't get caught up in the passion of Ripperology once in a while...and it is easy to see why Tumbelty could do that to someone at that time...then I think they are less likely to pursue the "hunt" as a rule of thumb for the amount of years you have been engaged in this field.

Hey ! Its better to go with Tumbelty than a shlub like Stephenson which this idiot,H.Brown,Phila.Pa., did....since in Tumbelty's case there are sources to verify claims:banghead:

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

Is there a possibility, in your opinion, that the entire approach may be flawed, which has resulted in "solution apathy"?

[SPE]

Stewart,
Is there a possibility, in your opinion, that the entire approach may be flawed, which has resulted in "solution apathy"?

Stan, I think that the approach to the case varies depending upon the individual and how they perceive things.

Some may be apathetic, but if so why do they stay interested in the case? Again the answer depends on the individual.

To my mind one of the worst approaches is the closed mind, usually caused by fixation on one suspect or theory.

[Chris G.]

To my mind one of the worst approaches is the closed mind, usually caused by fixation on one suspect or theory.

An excellent statement, SPE.

Chris

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

Fair enough, yet and you knew there would be a yet, could the same hold true for those who do not even attempt alternative options?

Let's use Bruce Paley as an example - I think we can all agree that while an interesting theory, Paley, while writing the definitive book on Joseph Barnett, including the best researched to date on the history of the actual man, has not gone any further than his 1995 book. Why not?

It could be many reasons but here are two:

a - he is fixated on Barnett as murderer and despite not getting past a hypothetical level and a theory with major holes, he is not doing any more with Barnett because he does not want to.

or

b - he cannot do anymore because he either simply cannot get further with his theory or that the theory itself can go no further.

Either choice places him in the same category, in my opinion, akin to your final statement. His research on Barnett was brilliant - why not apply that to another suspect and see where that leads him?

[SPE]

Stewart,
Fair enough, yet and you knew there would be a yet, could the same hold true for those who do not even attempt alternative options?
Let's use Bruce Paley as an example - I think we can all agree that while an interesting theory, Paley, while writing the definitive book on Joseph Barnett, including the best researched to date on the history of the actual man, has not gone any further than his 1995 book. Why not?
It could be many reasons but here are two:
a - he is fixated on Barnett as murderer and despite not getting past a hypothetical level and a theory with major holes, he is not doing any more with Barnett because he does not want to.
or
b - he cannot do anymore because he either simply cannot get further with his theory or that the theory itself can go no further.
Either choice places him in the same category, in my opinion, akin to your final statement. His research on Barnett was brilliant - why not apply that to another suspect and see where that leads him?


Stan , I fear that you might be over simplifying the situation here.

Taking your example of Paley, let's look at it. I do not know Bruce and have, I believe, only ever spoken to him once on the telephone. We do not know his personal circumstances, nor do we know if his great interest in the case has endured. Others may know Bruce and be in a position to answer this.

I should imagine that he has remained faithful to his proposed suspect but, of course, only he can answer that. Whether he can or cannot do any more in this regard, again only he can answer.

From our restricted knowledge of his situation, both personal and with regard to his suspect, how can we categorize him? It would be unfair to do so.

The answer, again, must lie with each individual. For instance I know several 'Ripper enthusiasts' who once had a great interest but then, for whatever reason, have lost all interest and have no more to do with it.

For others, such as myself, the interest is enduring, I have had it for over 45 years, and although I know the case cannot be solved that does not stop me continuing my research and providing new information for others, amongst whom are those who have that vigorous new interest in a suspect and are continuing valid research.

We must also get this thing into the correct perspective. In the wider world the identity of an unknown killer of 120 years ago who murdered a few down and out street women (and I am not deliberately demeaning them here) is of no, or little, interest. Also identifying the killer really has no great effect on history, albeit of the greatest interest to criminologists.

You may think that my saying that the case cannot be solved will put others off trying to do so. I don't think it will, do you? And, I'm afraid, I have to be honest about it.

[Monty]

The answer, again, must lie with each individual.

Speaking as an individual, what else can I do?, there has never been a drive to name him.

To try and understand him is an interest, to establish how he did what he did also grabs me.

Not only that but I am fascinated as to how the crimes were investigated, how they were reported, the socio impact not only within the immediate area but worldwide, the political impact...oh there is so much more to this interest than naming the man who committed the crimes.

It's easy to criticise a suspect theory.

Comes with the territory doesnt it Stewart? Weve all done it, some with relish. I know I have. Its just sad when it gets personal. Again, to my shame, I know Ive done that also.

Monty
:)

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

You know I have great respect for the work that you have done on this case. In saying that I completely disagree with your worldview.

For starters, this is not a field and I think in trying to make it a field, the primary focus has been pushed off to the side, the solving of this series of unsolved murders. I know that you are not the only person who has tried to make this a "field" rather than keep the focus on where some of us feel it should be, but it is tough to argue that your worldview is not counter-productive to solving this case, when you foster and take part in continued research while at the same time openly stating that there is no way the unsolved murders can be solved.

Monty does make a good point, that there are many aspects to this case that are worthy of research, but his flaw, based on what he just wrote, is to place a primacy of importance when it is merely a subjective primacy and there would be many to disagree with him.

In my humble opinion, there are many other ways or cases to research and study the interests Monty highlighted - and Monty, if I'm not mistaken, is a Druittist, so one must ask the question of when he decided that a solution was at or near the bottom of the list for him on primacy of importance for this case.

I only used Bruce Paley as an example. I have never spoken to him and have no idea what he is doing. His current history in the case is what I was trying to use as a metaphor, for those who put all their efforts into one suspect and then do not use their own strengths to try and tackle another suspect, when their strengths can only take them so far with their original suspect. That was the point. I could have used William Beadle, Richard Wallace or numerous others to illistrate the point I was trying to make.

If I am oversimplifying the situation, at least is a new way to look at things, because the archaic methodology is not working, or at least not working in pushing the case forward.

When you say that there are many "Ripper enthusiasts" who had a great interest in the case and have since lost all or interest, i think you are undersimplyfying it. It is perfectly okay to be beaten by the case and that is not meant as an insult but simply as acknowledgment that the person can no longer push the case and has since lost interest. The error comes in not admitting it and trying to halt others from pursuing it, which can come in numerous forms.

I make the argument with Howard all the time that the message boards are the biggest detriment to the progession of the case that I can name and I think to an extent, you agree with me. Yes they provide valuable information but the way the discussions flow from important issues on the murders to utter crap (which is important to some and has its place on other forums) impedes the progress, in my opinion.

Somebody committed these murders, so the case is not unsolvable, it is just currently unsolved. I do think calling the case unsolvable is a defeatist approach and I do think it casts a shadow on the status of the research in the field, from inside and from outside. Jonas Salk cured polio and polio was incurable, until Jonas Salk cured it. What if the one of the preeminent experts had told Jonas Salk there was no way he could cure polio? Worse - what if Jonas Salk had listened?

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting points, Stan.I do think calling the case unsolvable is a defeatist approach and I do think it casts a shadow on the status of the research in the field, from inside and from outside. Jonas Salk cured polio and polio was incurable, until Jonas Salk cured it. What if the one of the preeminent experts had told Jonas Salk there was no way he could cure polio? Worse - what if Jonas Salk had listened?There have been many instances, particularly in the field of science, where things seemed "unsolvable". Preeminent authorities, who took a broadly "defeatist" - I prefer "sceptical" - stance, sometimes made their opinions forcibly known. (A famous example of this would be Einstein's views on Quantum Theory - "God does not play dice with the Universe!".) However, I struggle to think of one instance where such apparent "negativity from the top" prevented new discoveries being made.

Of course, this only works if a discovery can be made - that is, if necessary conditions are met in order to definitively "solve" a given problem. Given that none of the witnesses, or culprits, from the time of the Whitechapel Murders survive - in many cases, not even their grandchildren - and none of the physical evidence has been preserved, definitive proof will be almost possible to obtain. Short of a verifiable signed confession, we will never find it.

That needn't prevent plausible suspects and other aspects of the case from being explored, however - indeed, there is much to learn and enjoy from doing just those things. As to conclusively identifying the culprit, however, there's next to no chance of success. That's a realistic view, by the way; not a defeatist one.

[Stan Russo]

Sam,

It's only a realistic view because you believe it. In fact, it is not a realistic view because there is an answer and that answer is out of reach, for the time being. By saying it is realistic that the case has next to no chance of being solved, you are contributing to the label of the study of this case as a sideshow.

There are alternative possibilities, outside of a signed confession or a photograph of 'JTR' with a bloody knife signed to his greatest fan. I think stating that these are the only types of things that would solve the case shows the limits of the researcher, not the case.

This is why people who are involved in this case are viewed as nuts by the academic community. It's akin to Jonas Salk saying that there is no way he can find the cure but he will keep on playing around because he enjoys touching germs. It's creepy and it is defeatist, when you say you can't do something - the thing that holds any progress of this case back is the majority of the people who revel in that.

[Sam Flynn]

It's akin to Jonas Salk saying that there is no way he can find the cure but he will keep on playing around because he enjoys touching germs. It's not at all like that. Salk's discovery - as we now know - had at its root fundamental physical elements that were actually there to be discovered. In other words, there was a physical "lock" into which the "key" he discovered would fit - and it would only fit in a certain way. That is not the case with finding the definitive answer to the Ripper mystery, because there is so very little of a physical nature to go on. Indeed, the advancement of several plausible suspects over the years has demonstrated that, if there is a "lock" involved in all this, it is somewhat accommodating of many possible "keys".

There are very few tangible artefacts remaining from the period of the case itself, and the evidence (be it witness testimony, police opinion or suspects' biographies) is extremely patchy. This paucity of evidence lends itself to multiple possible "solutions", none of which can ever be shown to be definitive, because any physical proof - such as would be required to identify the culprit beyond doubt - has long since vanished.

And those are not my beliefs, Stan. They are the plain facts of the matter.

[SPE]

Stan, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with my opinions, interpretations and hypotheses. In fact they are areas into which I do not like to stray. I am much more comfortable when presenting only the facts.

Fine you don't think it's a field, that's just a word for an area of study which I think that this is. You speak as if there is some all encompassing goal which is the solving of the case. I do not think that everyone would agree with you, as I think Gareth has indicated. I am not trying to make this a 'field' in order to divert your perceived focus. In fact that doesn't really make any sense to me. Ripperology is very much an individual thing and there are many who love the fantasy side of things, enjoying great stories such as Alan Moore's graphic novel. Anyway, who the hell am I as an individual to have the power to divert anything? People who want to go their own way will do so, as we can plainly see. They simply ignore me - many do.

There will always be those who pursue a solution, and focus on this suspect or that. And that is as it should be and they often come up with some great new information, such as Andy Spallek with Druitt and so on. I really do not know what you regard as 'archaic methodology'. Everyone pursues their own avenues of research in their own way. And no one has the influence to alter how others proceed or what areas they investigate. And if anyone is put off merely by me stating the case cannot be solved, then I doubt that they would have achieved much anyway.

How do you suggest the case is pushed forward? I think everyone who is interested enough is already doing the best they can, given their individual circumstances. It's a finite area of study, there's only so much to be found. And have no doubt about it, the search will go on.

When I say that there are many 'Ripper enthusiasts' who once had a great interest in the case and have now lost that interest, I am not 'undersimplifying' anything, it is a fact. And it's not a question of being 'beaten by the case', no one has ever succeeded in solving it and if you think they can I would be interested to hear of the scenario you envisage in which they could achieve such a thing. Where you have got it wrong is in thinking that I am 'trying to halt others from pursuing it', which is not the case at all. I should hardly assist them with their research if I was, and assisting is something I do frequently. I think you also overestimate the importance and influence of the message boards. I know many leading Ripper authorities who never look at them.

As a retired police officer, and as someone who has read most of what there is to read about this case I am satisfied that these unsolved Victorian murders cannot be resolved. To say that someone committed these murders, so the case is not unsolveable is simply not correct. History is littered with unsolved murders. And with all the protagonists long dead so they will remain. But what I find more worrying is that you appear to be suggesting that I should not voice my opinion - now that's an area where I would not like to go.

[A.P. Wolf]

Well, I'm wary of all this deep meaning and well intentioned 'worldview'.
My 'worldview' is that you get one shot at this damn target and if you miss you are out.
I do believe SPE took his one shot a few years ago, and missed.
I'm taking my one shot right now, if I miss I'd be very surprised.

[Monty]

Stan,

Like Stewart, I completely respect your views on this and, to a degree, can understand your points. I must point out that I have no inclination in debating this to be perfectly frank. I merely expressed my view.

However, there is one issue I would like to clear up and it is this.

In my humble opinion, there are many other ways or cases to research and study the interests Monty highlighted - and Monty, if I'm not mistaken, is a Druittist, so one must ask the question of when he decided that a solution was at or near the bottom of the list for him on primacy of importance for this case.

I have never favoured any suspect, and most certainly never suggested Druitt was Jack the Ripper. Im confused as to how you came to this conclusion and suspect my profile pic, which was added by Howard as a form of ID, may be the cause. It certainly does not hint to Druitt as my preferred suspect.

I do not have an order of primacy, a list of which topics are important and which are not. I just know what interests me and what doesnt. Thats not to say I think they are important. Maybe I should have wrote "oh there is so much more to this interest than just naming the man who committed the crimes."

Cheers
Monty:)

[Scott Nelson]

Neil, of course, wants to be buried in or near Mitre Square when he dies, as do I.

[Stephen Thomas]

There are very few tangible artefacts remaining from the period of the case itself, and the evidence (be it witness testimony, police opinion or suspects' biographies) is extremely patchy. This paucity of evidence lends itself to multiple possible "solutions", none of which can ever be shown to be definitive, because any physical proof - such as would be required to identify the culprit beyond doubt - has long since vanished.



Hi Sam

But one never knows does one.

Maybe something new will turn up one fine day.

[Monty]

Neil, of course, wants to be buried in or near Mitre Square when he dies, as do I.

Heh heh, under the cobbles Scott, holding hands, you and I, facing towards Butchers Row.

Monty
:)

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam

But one never knows does one. Maybe something new will turn up one fine day.It would be great if it did, Stephen, but its bona fides would have to be proven beyond doubt, and rightly so, before it could be accepted as absolute proof. The sort of thing we'd be looking for would be a verifiable confession/official record with other evidence to back it up. This is something clearly lacking in the extant evidence, and we still don't have anything like it, despite decades of brilliant research and ingenious speculation. So we're left with the serendipitous, I fear - the Ripperological equivalent of the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Gareth

Any and all serendipity welcome. But as many have pointed out, there are some great researchers around (including yourself) and they tend to make their own luck. Or as Gary Player once answered a spectator who accused him of being lucky, "Yeah, but the more I practice, the luckier I get.":)

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth, Any and all serendipity welcome.Indeedy-doody, Rob - and, thankfully, we get to "dip our serends" quite often with genuinely intriguing finds; be they photographs or documents, etc. These often bring new perspectives into play, and deepen our knowledge of this fascinating case and the people involved, which is great. It's wanting more of the same that drives many of us forward, and is surely motivation enough in itself.

New (or old) suspects, however plausible, can never be tied to the crimes beyond doubt, because the physical evidence just isn't there anymore. This is compounded by the fact that biographical data are virtually non-existent for the majority of the people alive at that time, and is likely to remain so. Such information seldom chronicles the daily or hourly activities of individuals in any case, even amongst the relatively well-known, and it's that level of detail we really need.

To compound our woes still further, the only "Ripper diary" we've had was written by someone who couldn't even be arsed to write the days and dates into it! Now, if even that couldn't provide the right sort of info, what chance that scrap of paper lurking in the attic of Miss Ethel Scroggins of 24 Quott Lane, Deptford? For, verily, I have seen the future, and 'tis she who will discover the best evidence so far! :)

[How Brown]

Since this is, in a sense, SPE's thread...maybe he could answer this question:

In your years of research, have you ever come across any attempt to create evidence that most of us, if not all of us, have never heard of ?

I am not referring to the following disputable issues for this particular question:

***The Maybrick Saga
***The September 17th Letter
***The Abberline Diaries
***The "Uncle Jack" Saga
***The Royals Conspiracy

Something not post-1992 or as recent as the advent of Casebook's message boards...something back when you were first starting out in the field.

Thank you.

[Stan Russo]

A.P.,

I completely disagree with your idea that we all get one chance - there is no reason why a prominent researcher cannot admit that their initial preferred suspect just is not leading them toward anything and as a result they are taking their research efforts elsewhere. It is actually noble, to admit it and still fight on.

Sam,

You have summed up the despair that entrenches this case perfectly. Someone committed the murders, so by definition, since the murders took place, they can be solved because someone had to have committed them. The true issue is not with that, but with the majority's unwillingness to accept any solution, regardless of how many unanswered questions it finally clears up. To me, that is reflective of the people, not the case.

And one more thing, just because you can't find something or because you can't see something there does not mean it isn't. That kind of arrogance permeates throughout many of the people who research this case and further proves what I have been saying for awhile, that the researcher who favors "unknown man" is simply favoring a non-existent suspect because they can not do anything more with their research abilities.

I am sorry if these are tough words but the truth of the matter is that I am invested in solving this case and take umbrage at people who preach to me that it can't be done while simultaneously doing nothing in an attempt to prove themselves correct.

And notice how once an actual discussion began it did not take long for someone to try and derail it with some kind of sidetracked attempt at comedy. How can we mock the academic community that laughs at us when we foster the reasons for their laughter?

[SPE]

I have to agree with Stan that anyone is entitled to make as many attempts as they wish with regard to identifying the Ripper. However, I do not really look upon it as 'identifying the Ripper', it is more in the way of presenting a best possible case for a named suspect being the Ripper, i.e. looking at the facts and then establishing what you feel is the best scenario for that person being the murderer.

In the case of Tumblety it was not a name I snatched out of thin air, for it was a name that was unknown in Ripper circles at the time. It was a name that provided a valid subject for research as it was provided by a contemporary head at Scotland Yard as 'amongst the suspects' and to his mind 'a very likely one.' We can debate forever the merits of Littlechild's statements, but they cannot be ignored. Any book on a suspect must be selective in the material used and cannot possibly be wholly objective - after all, you are looking at a subject. The case was bound to be inconclusive, although as a writer you are expected to make the best of what you have. Recognising that the case cannot be positively solved is a caveat that must always be applied to any theory.

I think that Stan probably credits me with more influence than I actually have. He does not like me publicly stating that I believe the case to be unsolvable. However, that is my right and if I am asked I have to give an honest answer. I certainly hope that Stan isn't suggesting that I keep quiet. Stan speaks of 'the majority's unwillingness to accept any solution, regardless of how many unanswered questions it finally clears up.' I don't really know what he means by that and I suspect that it could be answered only if he wrote a solution to the case himself.

I respect Stan's sincerity but he certainly does have a different view of things to mine. That's fine and as it should be, but I do wonder if he fully understands the nature of evidence and its application to various aspects of this case. Surely anyone is entitled to tell him that the case cannot be solved without, at the same time, having to prove themselves correct. Such beliefs are based on personal experience, knowledge and interpretation of facts. I agree with Stan, though, that if serious discussion is being engaged in then humour may be rather out of place.

To sum up, Stan feels that my public comments that the case cannot be solved puts a damper on things, discourages others and hinders the search for a solution. However, I have never discouraged anyone from research, in fact quite the opposite. Can anyone imagine that anything I might say would discourage AP or prevent him from doing further research on Cutbush? Of course not, and I wouldn't expect it to. More to the point, I wouldn't want it to. But that doesn't stop me from stating that I do not believe that he will ever find anything in the way of proof. For in Ripperworld the best anyone can do is to come up with a 'best possible scenario' and hope that their arguments sway the opinion of others thus providing a 'best possible suspect theory'. But that falls far short of proving who Jack the Ripper was.

Finally, I have to ask Stan, if he is happy to do so, to supply any sensible scenario that he feels would provide a solution to the case. And we already know that a written confession, without any solid and valid corroboration, can't do it.

[SPE]

Since this is, in a sense, SPE's thread...maybe he could answer this question:
In your years of research, have you ever come across any attempt to create evidence that most of us, if not all of us, have never heard of ?
I am not referring to the following disputable issues for this particular question:
***The Maybrick Saga
***The September 17th Letter
***The Abberline Diaries
***The "Uncle Jack" Saga
***The Royals Conspiracy
Something not post-1992 or as recent as the advent of Casebook's message boards...something back when you were first starting out in the field.
Thank you.

That's not a place that I would like to go How, sorry.

[How Brown]

Understood,Mr. E.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

I'm sorry Stan, but it was something you wrote that caused me to laugh out loud, but it actually struck a chord with me:



This is why people who are involved in this case are viewed as nuts by the academic community. It's akin to Jonas Salk saying that there is no way he can find the cure but he will keep on playing around because he enjoys touching germs. It's creepy...


I take on board Sam's objections to the validity of your comparison, but what matters is whether it's the perception of many people on the 'outside' that we are splashing and thrashing about in a blocked lavatory and telling the world we are quite happy that our only working plunger was lost 120 years ago.

There is no doubt that the plunger did exist - ie the one and only solution to the case. But like SPE I doubt that anyone will ever find evidence of enough of the right pieces, to reconstruct it so it doesn't just look (and smell) like a very likely plunger, but it's the only one that can finally free up the blockage and spew us out into the fresh air.

What I don't think you can claim is that people are in general being influenced by muck-drenched lavatory dwellers insisting that if they can't find the damned plunger, after 40 years of wallowing, there's not a cat in hell's chance of anyone else finding it so don't bother joining us in the soup.

The 'field' appears to be more popular than ever, with more and more squeaky clean outsiders wanting to dip their toes into our open sewer and stay for a good old wallow.

Oh and humour can't hurt if it can be used to get a point or two across. And it never hurts to laugh at ourselves. Get in before anyone else does is usually my motto. :)

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert Linford]

Stewart, could I have a shot at your question to Stan?

Suppose that the lunacy records of some violent lunatic very much like David Cohen come to light. The records differ from Cohen's in so far as they date from a few years later, plus they include the following :

Lunatic raves about the Ripper murders, imagines himself the Ripper, describes the crimes etc.

Lunatic is visited, in swift succession, by Drs Phillips, Brown and Bond.



And even, police arrive with unknown man to visit lunatic (I am not talking about the Seaside Home here).


After these visits, security surrounding lunatic is made even tighter than it was before.

This might not in itself be proof, but it would be worth getting our teeth into, wouldn't it? We can add that lunatic lived in Whitechapel. Lunatic had served a prison sentence directly after the Kelly murder. Etc.

I'm not suggesting this as a likely scenario, merely an illustration of the kind of thing we could hope for.

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

Of course you have the right to speak out as you feel and you know me well enough to know that I know that. You should be honest, but I think you should also understand that that honesty does affect things. I think you may be undersimplifying your status on this case. And it's important for you to understand that your words and the ramifications they hold are not an indictment of you but an indictment of the level of researcher that this case has brought in. Your words, while your truthful opinions, which I respect and respectfully disagree with, will never stop AP and never stop me and never stop a handful of others, but I place AP, myself and this handful in the distinct minority.

I have a solution that, as we have discussed, I am currently in the process of trying to disprove. I think that is the best way to harden my theory or subsequently dismantle it. I also wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that it is not about "proof" anymore, because this will never be a jury case and it does not have to be. However, and you knew it was coming, best possible scenario is something that has been thrown away with the baby and the bathwater nowadays. Due to the fact that almost everyone agrees there will never be any absolute proof to close this case permanently, there are those who have bastardized that for their own benefits, most notably to present theories such as "unknown man", which offers them a safe haven, which I find a little repugnant.

The comment on the humor is not that I am such a stick in the mud, yet I hear constant complaints at the conventions and from people who hate the academic community looking down on this "field" yet most of those same people become their own worst enemies and may not even realize it. It also seems that every time a serious discussion is attempted someone jumps in with a sidetrack and while I couldn't care less how this "field" is perceived, there are people who do care and unfortunately they are some of the same people who contribute to the very reasons why this "field" is considered hokey.

Caroline,

maybe it's the languiage barrier but I couldn't follow the whole toilet bowl analogy, but I will give it a go at trying to respond. While Sam states that there is an actual tangible lock to put the key in, for Polio, there also exists a tangible lock here, the murderer, for which a key will fit, the solution. The problem exists that Sam, like most, will refuse to accept anything by way of a key that fits the hole because, and this is based on his acceptance of the "unknown man theory", he did not and could not come up with a solution.

There are many solutions in Physics, for a myriad of problems and one solution is more elegant than the other, as Physicists would describe. This is what Stewart is getting at when he refers to "best possible scenario", I believe, yet there are many out there who have a vested interest in no scenarios or the demolition of a "best possible scenario". This allows them to continue to be involved, while getting nothing really done other than bashing the idea of a "best possible scenario", which is also a term for "solution".

The "field's" popularity should never be a concern. I am not sure why anyone would care how popular this "field" is other than those who are, in my opinion, on the wrong side of the issues. I'd rather have only 10 passionate researchers who actually want to contribute than 1,000 people who use this case to do nothing but make friends and comment on Cricket. that's just me though.

Robert,

Two things:

1 - David Cohen is an awful suspect and there is inferential evidence that eliminates him from consideration, under the confounds of the theory that proposed him.

2 - If such records were discovered, I would hope they would be researched and researched in great detail because it could have been him and this is an important point that I have been stressing for years. Siomply because a theory is disproved, such as the one surrounding David Cohen, that does not automatically eliminate him from consideration as a suspect.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Stan

I wasn't so much pushing Cohen as using his name to bring in the idea of a violent lunatic. The lunatic could be anyone.

If you mean, that just because a particular theory is disproved, that doesn't mean that the same suspect cannot be reconsidered under a newer, better theory, then I agree.

[Sam Flynn]

You have summed up the despair that entrenches this case perfectly.Who's "despairing"? I'm certainly not.And one more thing, just because you can't find something or because you can't see something there does not mean it isn't. That kind of arrogance permeates throughout many of the people who research this caseIf there's any arrogance here, it's the arrogance behind the belief that we can conjure solutions in the face of an almost complete lack of physical evidence, and in the absence of any realistic means of corroboration.How can we mock the academic community that laughs at us when we foster the reasons for their laughter?I think you'll find that academia is more likely to laugh at gullibility.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not suggesting this as a likely scenario, merely an illustration of the kind of thing we could hope for.Indeed, Robert - but it would never constitute proof. For that, we'd need to know this chap's precise whereabouts at (e.g.) 05:35 on 8th September AND at 01:42 on 30th September 1888. That just isn't possible, I'm afraid.

I should point out (for Stan's benefit) that my "despair" doesn't extend to the discovery of new, plausible, suspects - on the contrary, I'm always interested in hearing about them. However, I'm not so naïve that I'm holding out for a definitive, incontrovertible identification - because that simply can't be done at this remove in time.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Gareth

Could you sketch out what you think would have constituted proof in 1888 ? I'm assuming here that Lawende's , Schwarz's , Hutchinson's etc identifications could have been met with the rejoinder "It's his word against mine" and that the suspect didn't behave like the murderers in fictional detective cases who scream "Damn you!" and make a run for it. So what are we looking at - the suspect being identified by two witnesses?

[Sam Flynn]

Could you sketch out what you think would have constituted proof in 1888 ? So what are we looking at - the suspect being identified by two witnesses?That might be a step in the right direction, but then we'd need - God only knows how! - to verify his whereabouts at the time(s) in question. In other words, we'd need to take precisely the same steps as the police or a court in ruling out any potential alibis, amassing further evidence, etc. Given that this wasn't done at the time, it sure as eggs is eggs can't be done now.

Now, were we to find two witnesses who made a positive identification of the same suspect, it would make him an extremely interesting possibility, and a development I'd welcome with avid interest. I might put him at the top of my "plausible" list... but in all good faith I could not do anything more.

[A.P. Wolf]

I'm by no means as pessimistic as many others in this regard; and have of recent felt that we are but one single and sly document or report away from the truth of the matter.
Where others might see the tumbling of bricks, I see a house being built. Once the brickwork is finished we shall be able to put in the windows and peer into the house. I believe we are almost at that stage now, and very soon a door should appear and we will be able to walk into the house.
I would like to say that I hold the key to that door, but I only think I do.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

I believe that is the right attitude.

Sam believes that you are wasting your time trying to solve or even come up with the most plausible soultion, because he cannot and will not accept anything anymore. His ridiculous criteria shows how off base he is and how much of a detriment people with his perception are to this unsolved series of murders.

When someone comes along and says they will accept nothing, one has to wonder what the hell they are doing hanging around in the first place.

To some, there exists a legitimate pursuit to come up with the best possible theory and one that is an advance on anything that has been proposed before.

To others, anything short of a postcard with the murderer holding a bloody knife is unacceptable.

If I thought there was no hope of even coming up with a plausible solution, thqt was more advanced than any one before, I wouldn't be here. As I said earlier, many times before, there are plenty of places to follow Victorian police habits and the economics of the East End of London in the nineteenth century. Choosing to do so in connection to this case has its reasons.

The truth, which they will never reveal, is that they feel obligated to be here to mock and demolish those who put forth any effort.

[How Brown]

Please...lets not be as critical of each other's views on solving the Case. I would prefer it that way,since the primary goal of this thread ( and by all means,members may start up threads to debate or discuss how they feel in regard to that aspect of the case elsewhere...you should already know that) was to explore what Mr. Evans' views were after 40 years on the hunt.

Thanks:kiss:

[Sam Flynn]

Sam believes that you are wasting your time trying to solve or even come up with the most plausible soultionNow, hold on a minute! Who said anything about not trying to come up with the most plausible solution? Did I not say - a couple of hours ago, on this thread - that I might consider putting a really, really interesting suspect at the top of my "plausible" list? I suggest you double-check your comprehension, Stan, before you start insulting people.

To reiterate what I've been saying: It's the belief that one day we'll ID the killer that's "ridiculous" and "off base". Contrary to what you might think, the sort of criteria I've put forward in terms of obtaining definitive proof are 100% sound.

[Stan Russo]

says the theorist who favors "unknown man" because an "unknown man" is one that can never be found.

[Sam Flynn]

says the theorist who favors "unknown man" .The good think about "unknown men" is that they have a habit of becoming "known", Stan - or had you forgotten about Lis, Tumblety, Kaminsky...? Even Bury, Kelly and others weren't particularly "known" at one point in time and, let's face it, most people had never even heard of Maybrick, Gull or even Sickert until their names were put in the frame. Similarly, it's unlikely that many of us would have heard of Druitt, Ostrog or Kosminski had not Macnaghten dragged them out of the dark realm of the "unknown man" into the cold light of day.

Note, from the above, that merely "becoming known" doesn't necessarily make a plausible suspect.
because an "unknown man" is one that can never be found
"Unknown" does not mean "unknowable", either.

Here endeth Comprehension Lesson #2.

[Stan Russo]

but once they become "known", they can no longer be a suspect, because the case cannot be solved, so therefore if they are "known", they no longer are possibilities.

thus endeth paradox lesson #1.

[How Brown]

Thanks for getting the thread back on track Pilgrim...:)

The Planckster knew his stuff..in quantum.

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

I apologize for hijacking the thread.

I just have no tolerance for charlatans.

[SPE]

An interesting debate that appears to have confirmed my initial premise. Where I think those who favour a Polish Jew as the best suspect have got it right is that they have chosen a subject favoured by one of the top Scotland Yard chiefs of the day, Anderson, and, apparently, his subordinate, in charge of the case, Swanson.

Now, we know that this line of theorising may be dismissed for various reasons, but whatever the reason for rejecting it, it still remains a valid area for research. AP would argue a police conspiracy theory, whilst others would reject it for reasons you have seen in various books. But the rejections have certainly not halted those who pursue this line of reasoning, nor should it. There must be a lot more to learn about Kosminski, for instance, and the search must go on. No amount of naysaying has prevented it.

What is interesting about Anderson's claims is the fact that he says the identity of the murderer was known to the police. He was the only police officer to state such a thing. And he tells us that this claim is based on a witness identifying the murderer. Therefore his claim must fall down on this point alone. For we know that no witness ever positively saw the murderer in the act of killing. The best choices for the identity of the witness are Schwartz and Lawende, and they fall short of being good enough.

Where in depth research has been conducted, such as in the case of the Polish Jew, it may have gone on for years. In this case it has been going on since 1988. But 21 years of intensive research has yielded very little, apart from some good genealogical information and the fact that one Aaron Kosminski was taken to court for walking an unmuzzled dog over a year after the murders ended. The greatest aid to modern research has been the digitalization of the contemporary newspapers, and this continues to reveal odd snippets of information.

[Caroline Morris]

Therefore his claim must fall down on this point alone. For we know that no witness ever positively saw the murderer in the act of killing.

Hi Stewart,

I recall us making that very observation during a conversation at the WS1888. :)

Hi Stan,

What I was trying to get across was that even if some ripper commentators are insisting that the case can never be solved, and poking endless fun at those still trying, it doesn’t seem to be discouraging good, objective researchers from joining us for the ride (if not for the “hunt”), who could, as Robert illustrates, come across important new information.

I can see why you would be frustrated, if you think the reasoning goes: “If I failed to solve it, how dare some upstart think he/she can do it in the twinkling of an evil eye”. And I do recall very similar views being expressed by a lot of people in the “field” when Cornwell stuck her unwelcome oar in, to give a prime example.

If the case really can’t be solved, Cornwell and her ilk are up against a brick wall anyway, with anyone they care to finger, and its their credibility on the line, nobody else’s. But if you truly believe the solution is out there, anyone stuck in a “Sickert or nobody” groove is unlikely to be the one who helps find it. On the other hand, it could be one of the many who are not into suspect-based theorising and genuinely believe it's a waste of time, whose efforts in other areas eventually help to prove you right. So it's all good.



The truth, which they will never reveal, is that they feel obligated to be here to mock and demolish those who put forth any effort.

But you should be seeing that as their problem, if they are merely setting themselves up to be mocked and demolished in turn by those whose efforts you believe will one day prove them wrong.

Life’s too short to complain about attitudes that can't be changed unless someone else's efforts finally bear fruit.

There's a saying that goes: "While one man is explaining why something can't be done, there's usually another getting on and doing it".

Love,

Caz
X

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

I think you illistrate an important point that some researchers can get stuck in a single minded suspect rut and then go on to show the pattern "If I can't solve, no one can", and that turns from arrogant to malicious, whereby just believeing no one else can solve something this type of person can't turns to I will make sure no one else can by derailing all attempts and creating roadblocks.

Plus, on Anderson, you neglected to include that his solitary backup got important facts about the suspect incorrect, specifically the fact that the man they claim was 'JTR' did not die in 1894 or 1895, but more than twenty years later. Add to that the known fact that Anderson was a member of the Special Branch and never once mentions the Special Branch's suspect, the fact that he lied about Parnell in order to cast aspersions on the man, which actually went to court and parnell was victorious, wrote articles for the Times on Parnell, which was done without the permission of his immediate superior and is reported by numerous sources as being a bigot and a religious zealot. Anderson, to my mind, is far from an impeccible source, but also, that does not mean we should just throw everything connected to him out, which is the error of most who come to the conclusions on Anderson that are readily apparent.

Caroline,

I agree with almost everything you say and you are right - it should be there problem, not mine. However, I see Stewart's opinions, which he has every right to state, having an effect that even he himself is not aware of and that effect is incredibly damaging, in my opinion.

I was always taught to call people out on there crap and no one can accuse me of sitting on the bench and ignoring what is going on.

What if something is accidentally discovered by an outsider to the case and they take the time to read what goes on in the "field". I doubt they would waste their time on dealing with some of the characters here, whose only goal appears to be to harrass and attack those who wish to progress the case forwards in connection with a solution. if more were like Stewart, who openly feels that the case can't be solved but rationalizes the creation of newer and better "best possible scenario", then this argument would not be necessary. There are people in this "field" whose sole purpose is to destroy what others have worked for and the sad truth that they themselves might not even be able to face is that they do it to mask their own shortcomings and lack of ability.

There was a guy on the casebook, who I will not name, who openly came out and claimed that his sole purpose was to destroy everyone's faith in the Maybrick Diary. He didn't care anything about the murders or anything else about the case. He only wanted to demolish anyone who believed differently from him on this issue and he was unwilling to accept anything. You propbably know who I am getting at and consider how much more work could have been done if this person was either rational or absent.

[Sam Flynn]

I just have no tolerance for charlatans.
Neither have I, Stan, so at least we're agreed on that. I resent being tarred a "charlatan", merely because I don't happen to share your aspirations. Likewise, I resent being accused of having a "defeatist" or "despairing" attitude to the case. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have my views, you have yours - let's just respect that and get on with enjoying the case in whatever way we see fit, without resorting to mud-slinging.

[How Brown]

Sammy certainly isn't a charlatan. I think he has a terrific grip on the Whitechapel Murders.

Stan clearly isn't dispassionate. I think he has the interests of the Case in mind and at times goes overboard....like I do myself.

This is,hopefully for the last time, absolutely SPE's thread.

Ask him questions...probe the man's mind...engage with him.

Please go and start threads up elsewhere to discuss your views on the Case.

I don't want to read about A.P.Wolf's worldview or How Brown's worldview on this thread....and neither do 99% of everyone else.

Just SPE's

Thanks.

[SPE]

Stewart,
...

Plus, on Anderson, you neglected to include that his solitary backup got important facts about the suspect incorrect, specifically the fact that the man they claim was 'JTR' did not die in 1894 or 1895, but more than twenty years later. Add to that the known fact that Anderson was a member of the Special Branch and never once mentions the Special Branch's suspect, the fact that he lied about Parnell in order to cast aspersions on the man, which actually went to court and parnell was victorious, wrote articles for the Times on Parnell, which was done without the permission of his immediate superior and is reported by numerous sources as being a bigot and a religious zealot. Anderson, to my mind, is far from an impeccible source, but also, that does not mean we should just throw everything connected to him out, which is the error of most who come to the conclusions on Anderson that are readily apparent.
...


Stan, this is not the place for me to write the definitive assessment of Anderson, and it has been indicated that the only person equipped to do that, anyway, is Martin Fido.

I have never denied the importance of Anderson and I have often pointed out in the past what he got right. What I argue for is an objective assessment of the man that recognises his faults and presents them for all to read and assess. As I have pointed out many times in the past, some major Ripper books have omitted to include interviews with Anderson and statements he made that militate against him.

Where have I advocated that 'we should just throw everything connected to him out'? The simple answer is that I haven't. Indeed, all my reference works include everything the man said about the murders in order for the reader to reach their own conclusions. It is biased works that have sought to make him whiter than white that have wrongly influenced the reader. I have sought to redress the balance.

Another point is that influential past works on the case have also made some errors in their interpretation of the historical documentation which have resulted in students of the case, and other authors, perpetuating those errors and assessing people like Anderson and Warren incorrectly.

By the way, Anderson was never a member of the Special Branch, are you sure that you understand the nature of the Special Branch? There are some excellent books touching on the work of the Special Branch and they are well worth obtaining. The whole subject is very complex and, as I have pointed out in the past. Many Ripper students make the error of confining their studies to only the murders and anything directly relative thereto. In your case Stan you have recognised the wider picture and have extended your studies.

[How Brown]

Thanks very much for these reflections,Mr. E.

Allow me to ask whether you feel the assumptions which are present that Ripperologists have towards SRA ...which actually fall on each side of the proverbial fence:

( i.e., that he was anti-Semitic; that he was out of touch since he was abroad during the early part of the murder skein; that he isn't corroborated by subordinate officers...until DSS...)

...are part of the problem in determining SRA's role in the scheme of things...and that there is perhaps, a happy medium, which could be achieved or reached in order to move forward?

I've read Mr. Begg's ( for an example of an Anderson scholar's work ) article in the latest Ripperologist...and Mr. Begg stresses, as you do, the problems within several areas of Andersonia..not the least of which is the question whether either officer, DSS or SRA, was present at the identification.

How could we investigate the Seaside Home issue further?

1. Are there contemporary cases of similar "identifications" being conducted outside the normal protocol and procedural methodology of either police force which involved facilities outside London for London based crimes?

2. One is hard pressed, to say the least,to believe Sir Charles Warren would conduct an identification in the fashion that occurred as is claimed to have transpired..or actually did happen. Warren rejected HO suggestions which in his mind were illegal ( the suggestion made to search without warrants,back in October of 1888,I believe )...and Warren,despite all his naysayers, appears to have been a man who went by the book. If this line of thinking is on the right track...do you believe that its possible that the tactics involved in identifying the suspect are similar to an "off the record"...almost "rogue" operation....since no other brother officers before or after 1910...again save DSS... appear to support or confirm the Seaside Home identification?

3. I'm sure the following has been looked into at some point...but its possibly of importance to ask again: Has there ever been an inquiry into whether a patient register exists ( I think Nemo or Doug asked that elsewhere recently) of Seaside Home patients?

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

If Anderson was not a member of the 'Special Branch' then I am missing something. Based on the fact that he was Thomas Miller Beach's handler alone, a Fenian spy, he was a member of the 'Special Branch', unless we are discussing semantics such as he was a member of Jenkinson's 'Special Irish Branch' and not Monro's 'Special Branch', which I believe they were the same, if not named the same.

If we are looking for the document that clearly lists Anderson as a member of the British government's secret anti-terrorist organization, and are using such document as our only criteria to declare what logic dictates, then Anderson was not a member of the 'Special Branch'.

I think that we have to interpret the information at hand and come to the conclusion that Anderson was an active member in the British government's activities against Irish terrorism.

[SPE]

As I explained, I really do not have too much spare time to devote to questions that deserve considered and detailed answers.

How, in brief I don't think that Anderson was particularly anti-Semitic, and certainly no more than the average man of his position and religious beliefs. As we know he had a scholarly and friendly relationship with the Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler. He may have been a bit xenophobic and may well have leaned towards the mindset of 'an Englishman simply could not have committed such atrocities.'

Obviously he was out of touch whilst abroad, but as he indicated he fully updated himself on the murders, on his return, there is no reason to think that he knew any less than Swanson after doing this. Certainly he would have known a lot more than the average senior officer at that time.

As regards the alleged identification I should be very surprised to learn that he actually attended. In my opinion he would not have done, but, obviously, I could be wrong if it was conducted as described.

Identifications were conducted outside of a police environment, usually when the prisoner was in hospital, such as in the Lipski case of the previous year when the witness Moore went to the London Hospital where Lipski was recovering in order to identify him as the man who had purchased nitric acid.

The alleged identification is presumed to have taken place in late 1890 or early 1891, thus Sir Edward Bradford, and not Sir Charles Warren, was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I have never conducted any research into the Convalescent Police Seaside Home, which opened in 1890, therefore I know nothing of its extant records.

Stan, I try to avoid arguments involving semantics, put simply Anderson was never a member of the Special Branch, ergo I suspect that you misunderstand the nature of the Special Branch.

[How Brown]

Not to deviate from the purpose of the thread,SPE...but in the case of Lipski's identification in the hospital,we know policemen (Sgt. Thick being one of them) were positioned at Lipski's bed and if I am not mistaken, he was affixed to the bed by handcuffs or some sort of device...which brings me to this:

...that the Seaside Home identification may have been nig-rigged in the same way the Lipski Identification in hospital had been. No need to answer or comment,but you just gave me a thought. Thank you.

Not that what I think matters much,but I agree with you 100% that there's nothing which can be gleaned from the SRA/DSS missives from we can state with certainty that either one of the men, SRA or DSS attended the identification....which Mr. Begg also mentioned in this month's article.

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

so your argument that the handler of an anti-fenian spy was not a member of the branch devoted to anti-fenian activities?

I'm at a loss on the above.

[SPE]

Not to deviate from the purpose of the thread,SPE...but in the case of Lipski's identification in the hospital,we know policemen (Sgt. Thick being one of them) were positioned at Lipski's bed and if I am not mistaken, he was affixed to the bed by handcuffs or some sort of device...which brings me to this:
...that the Seaside Home identification may have been nig-rigged in the same way the Lipski Identification in hospital had been. No need to answer or comment,but you just gave me a thought. Thank you.


How, I feel that it is far from proven that any such identification took place (for which see Jack the Ripper Scotland Yard Investigates). Certainly the Lipski identification sounds a very unsatisfactory affair. Given the dearth of information, only Anderson and Swanson and they do not agree, I cannot see how we can progress any further with speculation, unless new or corroborative information from a different source comes to light.

[SPE]

Stewart,
so your argument that the handler of an anti-fenian spy was not a member of the branch devoted to anti-fenian activities?
I'm at a loss on the above.

Stan, it's probably an American thing as from what Tim Riordan said on his podcast I got the impression that he did not know exactly what the Special Branch was either.

[How Brown]

Thanks SPE and indeed,I have Scotland Yard Investigates ....

I know you have a busy schedule...so let me ask this and whenever you get a chance,please respond when possible.

If,as you propose here, that the identification may not have ever occurred as is assumed,either in one place or the other...is there some alternative opinion you may be working on or, in fact, already have, to explain this event?

If not at the moment,thats fine...and thank you.

[SPE]

Thanks SPE and indeed,I have Scotland Yard Investigates ....
I know you have a busy schedule...so let me ask this and whenever you get a chance,please respond when possible.
If,as you propose here, that the identification may not have ever occurred as is assumed,either in one place or the other...is there some alternative opinion you may be working on or, in fact, already have, to explain this event?
If not at the moment,thats fine...and thank you.

How, I do not subscribe to the mantra that 'there was a suspect, there was a witness and there was a positive identification'.

What I believe is that we should keep an open mind to all possibilities given the information that we possess. Of course, I am not stupid enough to adhere to that line of thought if independent confirmation of the identification comes to light. Relying simply on Anderson's word and the annotations in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book simply isn't good enough in my opinion.

No I am not working on an alternative opinion, nor do I feel that I need to explain anything, other than what is stated in what I have already written. I suggest that it is the 'Andersonites' who should be conducting intensive research in this area in order to bolster their theories.

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

and the Special Branch, according to you is ....?

[SPE]

Stewart,
and the Special Branch, according to you is ....?

No Stan, you tell me what you think it is and then we'll see if we agree.

[How Brown]

Thanks once more SPE !

The best arguments found against the "witness,suspect,identification" can be found in the Scotland Yard Investigates book written by SPE & Mr. Rumbelow....

Does anyone have any comments to add or enhance the discussion in regard to anything expressed by SPE which do not deviate from the theme of the Seaside/Marginalia theme?

[SPE]

In The Rise of Scotland Yard, A History of the Metropolitan Police, by Douglas G. Browne, London, Harrap, 1956, page 208, the following passage appears, apropos of the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' -

"His identity is unknown to this hour, though definite claims to the contrary have been made, and numberless theories propounded. Sir Robert Anderson, who succeeded Monro as Assistant Commissioner, C.I.D., just after the second Whitechapel murder, says that the murderer was a low-class Polish Jew. According to Sir Basil Thomson, 'in the belief of the police he was a man who committed suicide in the Thames at the end of 1888,' and who 'had probably been at some time a medical student.' A third head of the C.I.D., Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office."

This statement has always intrigued, not least of all because Browne was researching and writing the book in the early 1950s. The book had been started by Browne's friend Ralph Strauss who died and the book passed on to Browne for completion. In the preface Browne states "He had the generous help of the authorities at New Scotland Yard in being given access to the records without which such a work as he contemplated could not have been undertaken."

This access to the official records was given at a time when there would be much present that later went missing. So the indicators are that there was information in the records at New Scotland Yard in the 1950s that referred to an Irish connection with the Ripper. This has resulted in much speculation as to what it may mean, but the following official reference confirms that there was indeed such a line of investigation pursued by Scotland Yard. I don't think that this reference has previously been published -

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Easter%202011/irishinv.jpg

Obviously this is of the greatest importance as it indicates the presence of a file on this subject.

[Robert Linford]

Very intriguing, Stewart. Any comment on the use of the singular "murder"?

[How Brown]

Thank you for the generous display of that document,Mr. E. We really appreciate it.

Its probably wishful thinking, but out of curiosity, did Strauss leave any materials to a widow or family...for further inquiry?

This is very interesting material,Mr. E. Again...thanks.

[A.P. Wolf]

The Special Branch says:

'
Special branch

The Metropolitan Police Special Irish Branch was formed in March 1883 to counter Irish 'Fenian' terrorism on mainland Britain.
Over the years, Special Branch took on responsibility for combating a wide range of extremist and terrorist activity and the term 'Irish' was dropped from its title. Special Branch has responsibility for gathering, collating and exploiting intelligence on extremist political and terrorist activity, disseminating intelligence for operational use and assisting other Government agencies to counter threats to the security of the United Kingdom.
The government has recently announced that Special Branch is to merge with Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch to form the counter-terrorism directorate.'

[SPE]

Very intriguing, Stewart. Any comment on the use of the singular "murder"?

Robert, the reference is undated but I would assume that it referred to the latest murder at that time (Kelly?) and you sometimes see references in the official Whitechapel murders files to 'Whitechapel murder' used in this context. More to the point it gives a reference number '93867' almost certainly meaning that a file was commenced.

[SPE]

The Special Branch says:
'
Special branch
The Metropolitan Police Special Irish Branch was formed in March 1883 to counter Irish 'Fenian' terrorism on mainland Britain.
Over the years, Special Branch took on responsibility for combating a wide range of extremist and terrorist activity and the term 'Irish' was dropped from its title. Special Branch has responsibility for gathering, collating and exploiting intelligence on extremist political and terrorist activity, disseminating intelligence for operational use and assisting other Government agencies to counter threats to the security of the United Kingdom.
The government has recently announced that Special Branch is to merge with Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch to form the counter-terrorism directorate.'

Well done AP, the operative words being 'The Metropolitan Police...'

The Special Branch, in all its guises, was part of the C.I.D., i.e. an operational police branch, and was composed of serving police officers. Anderson was, of course, first a civil servant at the Home Office acting as adviser on political crime (1867-1886), then he became secretary to the Prison Commissioners, a role that very much irked him as he felt it to be beneath his level of responsibility. At the end of August 1888 he became Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at Scotland Yard, taking control of all of the C.I.D., including the Special Branch. He was never a member of the Special Branch.

[Robert Linford]

Thanks Stewart. If only the file would turn up in the post!

[How Brown]

Dear SPE:

As a brief sidebar to the thread...you probably remember the post-Kelly murder newspaper report which ( Simon Wood found it and placed it elsewhere about three years ago) mentioned the CID taking two Irish police officials to the Millers Court murder site shortly after the Massacre.

Do you think that their presence indicated something in regard or along the lines of which is contained in this document you provided?

I don't remember whether it was in the Irish Times ( sometime in November,of course...) and it is definitely not in Alan Sharp's excellent "JTR & The Irish Press ( which you and Mr. Begg helped proofread for him...a great decision,by the way on Alan's part as his book is terrific).

[A.P. Wolf]

SPE, thanks, but do we argue here if Anderson was a serving police officer, or a member of the Special Irish Branch?
I think it to be the latter.

'
Eventually Henry Matthews, an Irish Roman Catholic serving in a Conservative/Unionist government, eventually sacked Jenkinson from the Secret Department. Jenkinson burnt, rather than give up, his files the day he left office! Monro was given charge of both the Secret Department and the Special (Irish) Branch and re-employed Robert Anderson. This new unified department was to have its own detectives, one of whom was Chief Inspector Littlechild. '

Many thanks for posting the reference, but surely if undated it could refer to any murder in Whitechapel in that general time period and possibly be totally unrelated to the actual murders we discuss here?

[Stan Russo]

All I can say is WOW.

[SPE]

SPE, thanks, but do we argue here if Anderson was a serving police officer, or a member of the Special Irish Branch?
I think it to be the latter.
Eventually Henry Matthews, an Irish Roman Catholic serving in a Conservative/Unionist government, eventually sacked Jenkinson from the Secret Department. Jenkinson burnt, rather than give up, his files the day he left office! Monro was given charge of both the Secret Department and the Special (Irish) Branch and re-employed Robert Anderson. This new unified department was to have its own detectives, one of whom was Chief Inspector Littlechild. '


AP, You could not be a member of the Special Branch if you were not a police officer, it was a police branch. Monro was a senior police officer, i.e. Assistant Commissioner, but both Jenkinson and Anderson were civil servants involved in the running of the 'secret service' which was a government branch that used the police Special Branch.

This is not a case of semantics, they were different entities and Anderson was not a police officer at that time. In September 1867 Lord Mayo suggested that Williamson should be put in charge of a special Fenian department of the police. However, the government decided to to form a separate secret branch outside and an army intelligence officer, Colonel Fielding, was brought over from Ireland to head it. Anderson was 'loosely attached' to the Home Office as 'adviser relating to political crime.' This secret branch arrangement was soon ended.

In 1868 Anderson began his career as spymaster for the Home Office (a government, not police, department). It was at this time that Anderson became sole controller of 'Henri Le Caron' and thus ensured his security with the department.

The Metropolitan Police Special Branch was first conceived in 1881 and finally became a full entity in January 1887. It is likely that Anderson kept his Home Office job by dint of running a 'largely imaginary' spy network in America. Jenkinson finally realised this. Jenkinson and Anderson were government overseers, only Monro, until he resigned, was a police officer and even he was a department head rather than a member of the Special Branch.

Anderson, until August 1888, was a government/Home Office employee, not a policeman. You could not be a member of the Special Branch unless you were a police officer. Littlechild was the head, and all those under him the members. It is a clear distinction and eventually, of course, all police forces in the country had their own Special Branch officers drawn from the detectives in the C.I.D.

[SPE]

Many thanks for posting the reference, but surely if undated it could refer to any murder in Whitechapel in that general time period and possibly be totally unrelated to the actual murders we discuss here?

It is from the right period and I can't think of any other 'Whitechapel murder' that might qualify for the description of 'complicity of Irish Party', although I stand to be corrected. Another close reference (98122) is apparently to the Poplar murder and another to 'Whitechapel murders offer of a reward' (93305). Also, as we do know that there are at least two Special Branch files on the Whitechapel murders the natural conclusion would seem to be that this file does relate to the 'Ripper' series. Anyway, it's all very frustrating to have these references but not the files that they refer to.

[How Brown]

Thanks very much for the post and that its in an easy to digest format,Mr. E..

"Anderson, until August 1888, was a government/Home Office employee, not a policeman."

The idea I had before....is sort of in line with your comment/fact above.

If SRA had not been a policeman until August of 1888 ( Lets assume for just a moment that the Hove incident did occur with no doubt) and was one at the time of the identification, could there or would there be different procedures HE would undertake that a regular, well versed or long time police official may not have ?

Seriously,Mr. E...thanks for the really concise and to the point post above.

[SPE]

You are totally missing the point Stan. Anderson and Jenkinson were civil servants working at the Home Office and were in no way employed by the Metropolitan Police. When Anderson did become employed by the Metropolitan Police it was as Assistant Commissioner C.I.D. in August 1888. In no way was he ever 'a member of the Special Branch.'

The London bombings of early 1883 resulted in the formation of a new 'Irish Bureau' within the Metropoltan Police C.I.D. in March. This Bureau was headed by Chief Superintendent Williamson, under the brief to devote his attention to Fenianism. He had a staff of twelve who were officers most conversant with Irish matters. As head of this department Williamson kept in daily touch with Vincent and Anderson (at the Home Office) with important facts being reported directly to the Home Secretary. This new department first came together on 20 March and was generally recognised as the origin of what later became known as the 'Special Branch.' The original members were inspectors Pope, and Ahern, sergeants Jenkins, Melville, and Regan, and constables O'Sullivan, Walsh, McIntyre, Foy, Thorpe, and two Enrights.

In May Anderson had the right to receive intelligence from Williamson and the Royal Irish Constabulary taken away. However, he was kept on at the Home Office on an understanding that he would extend his own informants in northern England and the America. In early 1884 Anderson was reprimanded by Sir William Harcourt. He was lucky to still be working for the Home Office. He was then relieved of his responsibilities and duties relating to Fenianism in London. He still continued to act as contact with Le Caron.

Scotland Yard's Special Irish Branch started off with mainly English staff but gradually became 'more Irish.' In the government's 'secret service' Anderson was Anglo-Irish, and Brackenbury and Gosselin were old soldiers. Jenkinson was ex-Indian civil service, Vincent was army. Jenkinson went in January 1887 and the work was handed over to Monro who was also Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. This, of course, added to the problems that Monro was experiencing with Warren. It was then that Monro brought Anderson back into the Home Office role of assisting in running the secret service. In February 1887 Monro was given a staff of high-ranking police officers (Chief Inspector Littlechild and 3 inspectors). Littlechild was taken out of the Scotland Yard Irish Branch to perform this duty.

This group was now part of the Metropolitan Police (Jenkinson's had not been) and it was kept separate from the Irish Branch. It was known as Section D. The Irish Branch was known as Section B. It was also referred to as the 'Special Section Formed in 1887', the 'Special Confidential Section', and the 'Special (Secret) Branch'. This was all very confusing and shows that there was no single 'Special Branch.' The first Special Branch was this small group of four police inspectors under Monro who took over Jenkinson's duties in February 1887. It was not the Special Irish Branch of the C.I.D. which was a different entity.

The story is very complex and there is more to it. But, as can be seen, Anderson was a government (Home Office) administrator and was not a member of the police Special Branch.

[Nemo]

I hope Stewart does post as I have studied much of what he has stated regarding the beginnings of the Irish branch from the Fenian viewpoint.

The period immediately preceding his reprimand is a very interesting and relevant part of Anderson's career I think, and I would love to hear Stewart expand upon it if possible.

If I need a reference I have to see if I have a book on the subject or see if one is available. I love how 9 times out of 10 Stewart pulls up (and is gracious enough to scan and post for all to see) the original documents from the case. They are of an immense help to me and many others.

[How Brown]

In the instance that SPE does return to the thread...I had a question regarding the 1893 letter written by SRA to the HO in regard to Edward Knight Larkins' stream of letters and suggestions.

The date...1893 ...of SRA's letter to HS Asquith is critical and maybe SPE has some thoughts on this as well.

Because if the content of the SRA letter found on page 461 of The Ultimate Sourcebook is the mindset of SRA at that time...then something is very peculiar....and might be worth perusing.

Because by 1893, the issue of the "Polish Jewish suspect" being identified by the mystery witness had already been resolved for at least a year...according to Anderson.

Lets look at that letter for a moment. I'll place it on the thread unless someone else beats me to it.

Here we see Anderson claiming that the methods of Larkins ( who had Portugese sailors down as the culprits) were tested and considered worthless.

Thats fine. SRA may have meant tested and considered worthless prior to 1891...and all the way back to November 1888,when Larkins began his efforts to solve the Case based on his views and theories.

But that there is no indication within the letter from SRA to the HO that the Case had been successfully resolved by 1893 is a situation worthy of reevaluation.

If,according to SRA, the Case had been solved...why is there nothing in the content of the letter to the HO which supports his by then opinion that the Case was solved?

Is this an indication that what SRA would say 17 years later ( from 1893 to 1910) is false? Why does SRA go to the trouble of even answering the HO if by then the issue of the culprit, in his mind at least, was resolved?

One other thing occurred to me about this...and that is is it possible that this identification WAS as I mentioned in theory before...a rogue operation?

Back to SPE....

[Caroline Morris]

There was a guy on the casebook, who I will not name, who openly came out and claimed that his sole purpose was to destroy everyone's faith in.... He didn't care anything about the murders or anything else about the case. He only wanted to demolish anyone who believed differently from him on this issue and he was unwilling to accept anything. You propbably know who I am getting at and consider how much more work could have been done if this person was either rational or absent.

Hi Stan,

Just a very quick response that needs no reply and then I'll be gone, out of courtesy to Stewart and his readers.

Ironically, if it's the poster I think it is, no work was not done behind the scenes on account of the time and effort this person chose to spend ridiculing the efforts of others. In fact, it was directly due to certain statements of 'fact' being repeated so often, and sounding more and more dubious and hollow over time, that more research was carried out in certain specific areas than would have been the case otherwise, which proved what a crock some of the claims had been all along.

In short, something positive can be squeezed from the most unlikely and negative sources sometimes.

Love,

Caz
X

[Nemo]

Hi Howard

As regards the "rogue operation"...

I think that if it was important enough to get the witness and suspect together outside London and also try not to spark off a new Ripper sensation etc then there was a need for some secrecy or at least extreme discretion. To me, it does sound like a situation where some rules may be bent or at least some ruse was employed to get the suspect to the venue.

Surelly the suspect would have been accompanied by Special Branch/CID very close to Anderson and reporting back directly.

I'm not sure Anderson or Swanson were concealing the name of the Ripper in any way as they still only refer to him as the suspect.

Granted, in their own mind they may have believed Kosminski to have been the person most likely to have been the Ripper, but with no conclusive evidence, they themselves must always have known that a situation may arise in the future in which Kosminski was proven not to be the Ripper.

[Nemo]

Back on to the original thread...well... sort of...

I would like to ask Stewart how he keeps track of his immense document collection and library.

How is it all stored?

Does he have a catalogue of everything he has (and can I have a copy please? - joke!)

How many books + documents + items does he have in his collection?

If it was me I'm afraid I would have it in shoeboxes all over the house with minimal labelling - sort of "I know I've got that Abberline diary here somewhere.. bought it in 1968 and thought it might be interesting"

What is the best bargain or free find that Stewart ever purchased or came across in a booksellers/market?

Incidentally, I have not seen it mentioned on the boards but I saw a piece of tenuously linked ephemera on an Antiques Road show program a couple of years ago - it was a walking stick made from wood recovered from the Princess Alice boat mentioned in the Liz Stride case. If I remember correctly it was valued around £100 - I will have to watch all the repeats to check that.

Does Stewart collect "curio" items such as this or is he mainly into documentary evidence which has a proven historical worth or relevance?

All the best

Nemo

[Robert Linford]

"Seaside Home" has normally been taken to be the Police Convalescent Home, though I suppose it's possible that it was some other establishment. However, if it was the Police Convalescent Home, then that would make the idea of a rogue operation a bit problematic. Surely the last place one would pick for a highly covert operation, known only to a select few, would be a place housing convalescing police officers? Wouldn't they have realised what was going on?

[jmenges]

Wow.

It's like the movie Groundhog Day.

:der:

JM

[Robert Linford]

Or something by JB Priestley.

But not "An Inspector Calls."