1905 Sunday Chronicle report

[Howard Brown]

Thats an even better point. It may well indeed have come from Griffiths. I didn't think of that.

Ever optimistic, maybe another reference will surface predating Major Griffith's book released in 1898.

[robhouse]

Chris,

It seems to me that this "well-known Scotland Yard detective" could be Anderson himself. Certain phrases sound very much like Anderson, such as:

"We have thus frequently to submit to the public verdict that we have utterly failed in some important case when as a matter of fact we have morally suceeded."

Moreover, the following could be a reference to the identification of Kozminski, and the witness's refusal to testify:

"the ordinary man or woman hesitates very much before giving evidence which may cost [sic] a fellow-being - murderer though he may be - to lose his life. Often we cannot take credit for finding the man, because suspicion, however strong, without legal proof has to be kept quiet."

And as you pointed out, the unnamed detective makes very similar statements in reference to the Elizabeth Camp murder that Anderson made in the 1908 Daily Telegraph article. (By the way, do you have the full text or a scan of that entire article, I do not think I have it.)

Also, as you pointed out, it is interesting that the date of the article does not fit with the statement "the most terrible crime during the last decade." I am wondering what this all would mean. Anderson was of course retired some four years before the article came out, so he would not have been at Scotland Yard at the time.

I am wondering if the newspaper received some sort of prepared police statement that was written many years before and re-used in 1905.

Rob H

[robhouse]

Also, I feel that this report sounds similar to the one RJ Palmer just posted on JTR Forums... although he does not give the source, he says it is from late 1889 I think. I am quoting the relevant part of RJ Palmer's post here:

"Sorry for my own 'cloak and dagger' air, but I have reasons for holding back the precise details of my source; I will say, however, that the correspondent is credible, lives in London, and is writing near the end of 1889. It's unclear whether the surveillance described is being carried out by the Met or the City of London police.

Two different near contemporary suspects are described. The first is a 'toff' who frequents Whitechapel and is known for drinking heavily and treating the locals. His name is given as "Jim."

The name of the second suspect is not given, but the description is quite interesting, and I'll give it in full."

"The second man is now being watched. He is a resident of the East End, and has been for years. For a long time he has been acting in the most suspicious fashion. He has a business, to which he scarcely ever personally attends. He goes about drinking, and is to be met at all hours of the night in the streets all over the neighborhood. He enters his house at hours when his wife and family have long been at rest. No member of his family dare question him as to his ramblings. He knocks about among the lowest class of women at unearthly hours, although, according to general report, their very appearance is hateful in his sight. His hatred has been produced by physical suffering, for which, like most men of his class, he holds himself perfectly irresponsible. His habits are such as to give one the notion that he is not altogether in a fit position to be allowed to roam at will. Whether he has anything to do with any crime, it is, of course, impossible to say, but he is kept in view."

It seems to me that this suspect sounds quite a bit like the suspect in the 1905 Sunday Chronicle reference.

RH

[Chris]

It seems to me that this "well-known Scotland Yard detective" could be Anderson himself.

The thought had crossed my mind. I'm not sure there's anything here that definitely contradicts what Anderson said elsewhere, but I don't think this can be referring to Aaron Kozminski, so it would require Swanson to have misunderstood which suspect Anderson had written about in his memoirs. I suppose stranger things have been suggested.

Of course, one piece of evidence that has been cited in identifying Anderson's suspect with Aaron Kozminski is the fact that both were said to have indulged in masturbation. But it's interesting that Hyam Hyams, to whom RJP suggests his 1889 report may refer, was also recorded as a practising "self-abuse". But from the information about Hyam Hyams elsewhere on this site, it's not clear to me he was at liberty in late 1889 (at least for more than 10 days in early September).

And as you pointed out, the unnamed detective makes very similar statements in reference to the Elizabeth Camp murder that Anderson made in the 1908 Daily Telegraph [Chronicle] article. (By the way, do you have the full text or a scan of that entire article, I do not think I have it.)

A scan was posted by Stewart on jtrforums:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=82985&postcount=13

[Chris]

Also, I feel that this report sounds similar to the one RJ Palmer just posted on JTR Forums... although he does not give the source, he says it is from late 1889 I think.

Yes, I think that's very interesting, and it does sound as though it could be the same man. If so, it would be invaluable in telling us when the suspect was watched. (Incidentally, though as RJP points out there are also similarities with Cox's account, apparently the timing would be different, as Cox's surveillance seems to start around the time of the Kelly murder and continue for nearly 3 months.)

The other suspect mentioned is obviously James Maybrick.

But seriously, it's interesting that we now have five accounts that may or may not refer to the same suspect:
(1) Cox's account
(2) Sagar's account
(3) The Sunday Chronicle account from 1905
(4) The Daily Telegraph account from 1892
(5) This new account from 1889.
It must be encouraging that three of the five have come to light in the last year or so ...

[robhouse]

Have you thought any more on the fact that this 1905 account seems to be a bit off in terms of dates? Specifically that 1905 would not fit with describing the Ripper crimes as "the most terrible crime during the last decade"...? Of course, Anderson was not at Scotland Yard in 1905, so I think, as you suggested previously, that we could be seeing an earlier source that had been sort of reworked. I am wondering if this was a sort of canned response that Scotland Yard issued to reporters whenever they started asking about the Ripper crimes.

RH

[Chris]

Here's an interesting account of the murder of Elizabeth Camp in 1897 - referred to in the Sunday Chronicle Article and also by Anderson in the Daily Chronicle - on the British Transport Police website, by William Owen Gay, formerly chief constable of the BTP:

http://www.btp.police.uk/about_us/history/crime_history/murders.aspx#elizabethcamp

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Thank you indeed. Camps is a very interesting case. On a slightly connected note, you don't happen to know if there is any connection to Francis Camps apart from the same last name do you?

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Thank you indeed. Camps is a very interesting case. On a slightly connected note, you don't happen to know if there is any connection to Francis Camps apart from the same last name do you?

Sorry - I should have written "Camp", not "Camps", above. So presumably no connection.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

No problem, I read what you wrote and followed it..it is late at night..tired eyes..apologies. Again, many thanks for the info.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Howard Brown has discovered an extremely interesting report in the North-Eastern Daily Gazette of 18 September 1889:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10901

Evidently this was copied quite widely in the provincial press, and also appeared in the following:
Sheffield and Rotherham Independent, 18 September 1889
York Herald, 19 and 21 September 1889
Dundee Courier and Argus, 19 September 1889
Aberdeen Weekly Journal, 20 September 1889
(the Sheffield and Rotherham Independent and York Herald versions begin "A reporter had an interview on Monday night with
a well-known detective ..." )

I think this certainly describes the same suspect as the report found by R. J. Palmer a few months ago:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=132545&postcount=18

And like that report it also has a lot in common with the Sunday Chronicle article of 1905.

The relevant part describes one of three suspects who were then under observation, according to the detective:
One man created some stir during the last murders under circumstances which I need not say anything about. He is a curious sort of fellow, in business, but not doing much to keep it going. His wife and daughter see to it, and he is out at all hours of the night. He says he is a member of the Vigilance Committee, but I can't answer as to that. No, I won't tell you his name, even if you do want to find out if he is a member or not. This man is out at all hours of the night, and he lets himself in so quietly that his wife does not know at what time he really arrives home. She generally finds him in the shop when she comes down in the morning. He is being watched, but we can't arrest him only on the suspicions we have. We must await further developments."

This adds several potentially useful pieces of information. The man has a shop, which the family lives above; his business is effectively run by his wife and daughter; he "created some stir" during the last murders (presumably meaning the Autumn of 1888).

The detail about the daughter seems to rule out two men who have been suggested as suspects - Hyam Hyams apparently had only two children, who would have been only toddlers at the date of this article, and Jacob Levy's eldest known daughter would have been only about four (and in any case he had been married only ten years before, and the 1881 census shows no daughters in his household).

Interestingly, it would be reasonably consistent with what's known of Solomon De Leeuw of 59 Butchers' Row, whose eldest surviving child at that time was a daughter about 13 years old.