Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SPE's Worldview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Questions

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Assessment

    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by SPE View Post

    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.

    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Interesting

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Stewart,

    I apologize for hijacking the thread.

    I just have no tolerance for charlatans.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks for getting the thread back on track Pilgrim...

    The Planckster knew his stuff..in quantum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    says the theorist who favors "unknown man" because an "unknown man" is one that can never be found.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X