He is not referring to Swanson as his unimaginative subordinate is he?
Though his subordinate appears "unimaginative" he is in fact correct
The reference of course might or might not be a reference to Swanson, although we might imagine that it is. But considering that the nod to the man comes directly after a mention of Sherlock Holmes, we have to think that Anderson was casting himself in the role of the great Baker Street detective and Donald Swanson (if he is the subordinate who is meant) as his unimaginative Watson.
Thanks, Adam. Then it's clear that, if we go by Swanson's annotation, Superintendent Shore was the unimaginative subordinate that Anderson was talking about.
Frederick George Abberline [retired], Old Bailey, April 1892–
" . . . In March, 1891, I went to Calais, and kept observation on the steamers arriving and departing there—I took Sergeant Lowe with me, as he spoke French fluently—on the morning of the 9th April I saw four men I knew leave the mail steamer Breeze, arriving from Dover at a quarter to one a.m.; they left separately—one was named Powell, another Sinclair, and the two others, Red Bob and Shrimps . . ."
So could Anderson have been writing about Abberline?
It would appear that men like Powell, "Red Bob" and "Shrimps" would have been familiar to many at CID. Anderson seems to be relating to someone in CID who would have been in a close advisory capacity, such as Superintendent Shore would have been.
Good observation, though.
Best Wishes,
Cris Malone
______________________________________________ "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."
Comment