Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SPE's Worldview

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

  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Or something by JB Priestley.

    But not "An Inspector Calls."

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Wow.

    It's like the movie Groundhog Day.



    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    "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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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....

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Missing the Point

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Frustrating

    Originally posted by A.P. Wolf View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Special Branch

    Originally posted by A.P. Wolf View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    All I can say is WOW.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X