Home office report

[glyn]

Well the annotations have not come up to close scrutiny for a start.

Everything else about Kosminski hasnt either. The only facts surrounding him which can be relied upon is that he threatened his sister with a knife, and at some point went to a lunatic asylum where he later died.

The rest about him must have been written by The Brothers Grimm

There are no slanderous claims its simple these fine upstanding men either lied or were wrong either way how can anyhting they said or wrote be relied upon.

Its always the same here when someone disputes what has been said or written they always get accused of slander. The truth really hurts some people and it seems you are the one who gets hurt most of all.

Keep up the good work Trevor,ignore the accusations,you are making valid points.

[glyn]

There was once a discussion regarding Swanson s "Kosminski was the suspect" marginalia,and whether it was a forgery.Did anyone come to a solid conclusion? It always seemed rather convenient to me.

Thanks Jonathan for message,your explanation makes sense,Im not sure why it causes issues here,but hey ho.
regards

[glyn]

There was once a discussion regarding Swanson s "Kosminski was the suspect" marginalia,and whether it was a forgery.Did anyone come to a solid conclusion? It always seemed rather convenient to me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would Swanson - a career policeman, not a patronage appointment - lie in a private notation in a book that he owned?
Where is the evidence?

To make the accusation that these men were lying because they supported different suspects is absurd and is an insult to basic common decency. These individuals are no longer here to defend themselves and unless there is proof, there is no justification to make such slanderous claims... especially to propose them as 'fact'. These men still have families to consider; or is that of no concern in this field? This is why some aspects of 'Ripperology' stink to high heaven.

Well the annotations have not come up to close scrutiny for a start.

Everything else about Kosminski hasnt either. The only facts surrounding him which can be relied upon is that he threatened his sister with a knife, and at some point went to a lunatic asylum where he later died.

The rest about him must have been written by The Brothers Grimm

There are no slanderous claims its simple these fine upstanding men either lied or were wrong either way how can anyhting they said or wrote be relied upon.

Its always the same here when someone disputes what has been said or written they always get accused of slander. The truth really hurts some people and it seems you are the one who gets hurt most of all.

[Hunter]

Why would Swanson - a career policeman, not a patronage appointment - lie in a private notation in a book that he owned?
Where is the evidence?

To make the accusation that these men were lying because they supported different suspects is absurd and is an insult to basic common decency. These individuals are no longer here to defend themselves and unless there is proof, there is no justification to make such slanderous claims... especially to propose them as 'fact'. These men still have families to consider; or is that of no concern in this field? This is why some aspects of 'Ripperology' stink to high heaven.

[jason_c]

I can obvioulsy the band of officers who served out country well in 1888 couldnt

So whom do you say was wrong and who was lying then ?

I have no idea who was wrong and who was lying. Neither do you.

We can only speculate at what drove each policeman to their conclusions. Simply being wrong in their beliefs is not enough to conclude they were lying.


If I were to guess I'd say Anderson was overstating the proof against Kosminski and MM was relying on family suspiscions rather than serious police investigations against Druitt. Neither of which are satisfactory in condemning a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh please.

You cant tell the difference between being wrong and lying?

I can obvioulsy the band of officers who served out country well in 1888 couldnt

So whom do you say was wrong and who was lying then ?

[jason_c]

I can also say that during the tribunal hearing one police witness even told lies so dont anyone try to say that Anderson and all of the others couldnt or didnt lie clearly by the different suspects they named that clearly show one some or all were lying.

As you quite rightly stated Phil it doesnt matter a a rats a..se whether or how they served their country. Even today politician lie it goes with the job.

Oh please.

You cant tell the difference between being wrong and lying?

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, we all view Anderson in different ways. Some say he couldn't lie. Some say he wouldn't lie. Some say he may have lied. Some say he did lie.

I personally have grave doubts as to this man (Anderson) and his beliefs of what is acceptable for a public servant to be allowed to do. You can dress it up and hide behind whatever you wish, some policemen DO lie. Some policemen have been corrupt too. It matters not one iota how long they served their country.

I DO have great respect for the police and their difficult job in general.

Historically speaking, there are many men who have reached the top of their profession and have mis-used their position.

best wishes

Phil

I can also say that during the tribunal hearing one police witness even told lies so dont anyone try to say that Anderson and all of the others couldnt or didnt lie clearly by the different suspects they named that clearly show one some or all were lying.

As you quite rightly stated Phil it doesnt matter a a rats a..se whether or how they served their country. Even today politician lie it goes with the job.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, he isn't. And in any case I can't think of anyone who relies on police memoirs "without question." I wish you would give people credit for a bit more intelligence.

Sadly common sense and intelligent rational thinking is sadly lacking in some quarters

[Phil H]

I don't think you WANT to hear Phil C.

I'll leave you with your anachronistic prejudices and shut up. No more me in this thread.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Talking of such men lying, in my view, is disrespectful of them (Anderson gave a lifetime of loyal service to the public) and misunderstands the pressures and responses of the day.

Well, we all view Anderson in different ways. Some say he couldn't lie. Some say he wouldn't lie. Some say he may have lied. Some say he did lie.

I personally have grave doubts as to this man (Anderson) and his beliefs of what is acceptable for a public servant to be allowed to do. You can dress it up and hide behind whatever you wish, some policemen DO lie. Some policemen have been corrupt too. It matters not one iota how long they served their country.

I DO have great respect for the police and their difficult job in general.

Historically speaking, there are many men who have reached the top of their profession and have mis-used their position.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

So the possibility that senior policemen lied, or even with-held information, facts and truths, cannot be ruled out. Deny and confuse was the order of the day for some, it seems.

There is I think an important perceptual point here, that it is crucial to understand. This relates to both conventions and responsibilities, as well as to the period concerned (1880/90s).

Public servants have a number of responsibilities, but key among them is to serve and "protect" the Government of the day and Ministers in particular in so far as official business is concerned. By "protect", I do not mean anything underhand or improper - but that what is issued must reflect what Ministers, in their official capacity wish to see in terms of arguments, lines taken, material issued etc. (Thus "impartial" officials - who have to serve administrations of any complexion - would not release documents contrary to Government policy of the day, seek to undermine the legitimate decision-making process, or breach confidentiality or security considerations.

In recent years, innovations such as Freedom of Information, Human Rights as well as certain commitments made by Governments etc have somewhat changed this approach. But in 1888 and after public servants would have been very much caught up in the ethos I described above.

It is important also to understand what is meant when the words "lie" or "lying" are concerned.

If a Minister lied to, or deliberately misled the House of Commons, he would be expected to, or be forced to, resign. This happened to John Profumo in the 1960s. So, in terms of public adminsitration it would be HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Ministers or civil servents (or their ilk) would lie in any way that attached to the public record.

In Victorian times, even more than today, these principles would have been reinforced by the contemporary mores on gentlemanly behaviour - so social ostracism would be a threat to those who breached the conventional wisdoms - in a phrase, absolute disgrace.

However, and that said, there will always be circumstances when it would be inconvenient for Government to be entirely frank, open or thruthful - these might relate to personal, legal, international, security or commercial concerns. Thus, even to admit an interest in something, or that papers exist on a subject, might alert others to what Government was doing prematurely, or in a timescale that might allow that interest group to thwart Government policy.

Hence carefully worded denials, pharses that appear to mean one thing but can be interpreted in another, are the stock in trade of all senior administrators and many junior ones. But the wording used will never be untruthful, and the wording would be justifiable in the event that it was challenged.

A skilled administrator can often spot such phrasing, even if it would not be possible to determine what the underlying issue was.

Anderson, Macnaghten, Swanson, those supporting the Home Secretary in his Private Office etc would have been masters of these skills, and trained in them.

Talking of such men lying, in my view, is disrespectful of them (Anderson gave a lifetime of loyal service to the public) and misunderstands the pressures and responses of the day.

Phil

[Chris]

Is Kosminski not you favoured suspect ?

No, he isn't. And in any case I can't think of anyone who relies on police memoirs "without question." I wish you would give people credit for a bit more intelligence.

[Phil Carter]

Within the next 7 days hopefully

I would just like to point out not only to you but to many others who have sought to rely on and without question the "evidence" from the memoirs and other letters of these senior police officers.

It is fact that police officers do not always tell the truth it is still the case today and was so way back in 1888. Just because they were so called respected senior officers it doesnt mean they were all shining lights. This is borne out by all the differnet suspect names they came out with.

I will cite a modern day example of a senior police officer lying in a statement and being caught out. This relates to a police officer who was out in uniform in the town centre when he tried to make an arrest of one man. This man wasnt compliant and a struggle ensued which resulted in the police officer sustaining a broken hand.

Within a short time after the arrest he made a witness statement where told lies about what had happened during the incident and how he had been assaulted. That statement a short time later was used in the interview of the suspect. There were no independent witnesses to the incident

However that suspect had a good legal adviser who knew the area was covered by CCTV and asked for it to be seized and when viewed it clearly showed a different picture to what the officer had put in his statement.

Now the moral in this story is that because there were no idependent witnesses and had there not been the CCTV without a doubt had the matter gone to court they would have beleived what the officer was saying no doubt taking the view that the officer was telling the truth because he is a police officer and the man arrested was a nobody.

So I fail to see how so many are prepared to accept without question what these senior police offficers say years later, especially as none of them came up with the same suspect.

Hello Trevor,

Indeed, together with the point that Special Branch did have, have always had, and still have a reputation for getting the job done their way. Like Anderson himself said, not always within the boundaries of the law. So the possibility that senior policemen lied, or even with-held information, facts and truths, cannot be ruled out. Deny and confuse was the order of the day for some, it seems.

best wishes

Phil