How Are The Mighty Fallen

[robhouse]

I think the correct answer would be, honestly, both of us. But I do not think that you are being any less rude and arrogant than I am.

[The Good Michael]

Hey! I was rude. I'm sorry about that Jonathan. Seriously. Korea does that to me. Soon, I will be gone from Korea and I will be less rude, I hope.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Michael, apology accepted.

Where are you in Korea?

Robhouse,

Well, that is some sort of concession.

When I first said the Green River Killer was not an apt comparison I do not think that was being rude? It was just dissent.

But anyhow, I realize you are trying to be constructive and that is not nothing. Look, please, look past me and my failings of expression, and re-read that chapter 'Did Anderson Know?'.

I do not mean because you will then 'see the light'. That would be arrogant.

Rather, because an argument which I think is very strong is put better there -- to put it mildly --by two, experienced writer-researchers, than it is by me on these Boards.

There is a cruel irony here in that I think, perhaps unlike Evans and Rumbelow, that Aaron Kosminski is a very strong suspect. He may well have been the Ripper?

Kosminski lived in Whitechapel, he was mad, he allegedly hated prostitutes, and seems to have had a capacity to be menacing with a knife, his own family may have believed he was the fiend, and he was suspected -- at some point -- by the head of CID at the time of the murders, and --arguably -- he was also the favored suspect of the operational head of the case.

I wrote an article trying to reconcile these two opposing points of view and most people, even ones who found it interesting and original, felt it failed miserably in this objective; that as Anderson circled the plug-hole so did Kosminski right next to him ...

[The Good Michael]

Jonathan,

I'm in Suncheon. In June I'll be in Antofagasta, Chile at an international school. I'm pretty stoked for that. South America is fun, and Chile has a decent economy by SA standards.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Kosminski

The only official police document that touches upon Kosminski is Macnaghten's confidential report of 23 February 1894. This has been analysed so much in the past that it really should not be necessary to do so yet again.

Signally this report shows that Macnaghten was aware of Kosminski and it unequivocally qualifies the suspects listed thus, "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." In respect of Kosminski he states, "This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies; he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'."

This, of course, raises many questions about Kosminski. However, a perceived positive identification should warrant a mention and is certainly more than 'a shadow of proof.' We have no proof of Kosminski's 'great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class', nor of his alleged 'homicidal tendencies.' And we have the mention of 'many circs' which, presumably, include the above and others that are not mentioned.

This also has to be looked at in the full context of the case against Aaron Kosminski which includes the fact that there are no known convictions against him for assault, abusing prostitutes or making any homicidal attack. This despite the fact that it was not until February 1891 that he was incarcerated, and then not in a maximum security facility.

We must also consider Macnaghten's remarks that it seemed "highly improbable that the murderer would have suddenly stopped in November '88" and he thus offers up the solution that "he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum." Of these two alternatives the first fits Druitt and the second, apart from the time lapse, Kosminski.

The recurring and unresolved errors and anomalies in what the various senior police officers wrote is confusing and vexatious. And it is what leads to so much theorising, hypothesising and debate amongst students of the case. The various theories and ideas taken aboard, and the adoption of a preferred suspect, then tends to colour a person's thinking on the case.

I have made it clear that I do not reject Kosminski or Druitt as suspects worthy of further research despite the lack of solid evidence. What I do argue is that the case against Kosminski has been 'over-egged' to the degree that some have convinced themselves that it is the solution. But it is more fragile than that. The strength of the case is based on the writings of Anderson and, to a lesser degree, the annotations of Swanson. Therefore attention turns to them and their veracity.

I am not impressed by what I see on a close study of all the available material in this regard. For a start, and as I have explained, in the past it has been assumed that Swanson is corroborating Anderson when, as I have shown, the whole story may have originated with one man, and not both. I would favour deliberate misinformation rather than dodgy memory in the case they make for the alleged identification. And my chapter on Anderson explains that. But that, too, is a theory, and my opinion, and may be accepted or rejected depending on the viewpoint and experience of others.

What does disturb me is how personally some people take all this and the result is the acrimony we have seen and people getting very upset. Surely that is the time to give it all up? And I am not above these feelings myself at times, so I too question the validity of an interest that no longer gives you any pleasure.

[Natalie Severn]

Put not your faith in Prices! [Elizabeth 1st]

Jonathan,[sorry I left out the "n" in "princes" above, by mistake------maybe it was a freudian slip and profit and prices may have more to do with omitting relevant "facts" than anything else!]
The only reason Kosminski has been put forward as a suspect is because of one man , a spymaster Sir Robert Anderson, whose main role throughout his career as a head of CID was to disinform .That is a fact.
If we stick to facts,Jonathan, instead of indulging in convoluted speculation as to what motivated Anderson in putting forward his very unlikely suspect, we find that he had no sooner put pen to paper in 1910 , than the strongest rebuttal came forth in print by none other than Sir Henry Smith , Anderson"s equal in rank and City Police colleague , the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police .
Smith would have none of it. Robert Anderson did not know who the Ripper was, nor where he lived , nor did anyone else [ n.b. Cox and Sagar,Smith"s own City men, included ].
Now ,had Smith put forward a suspect of his own, I may not have given his words much credence.But he did not. Instead he said, emphatically that Nobody knew not then or twenty years later, "he had us all completely beat" .
[B]Like it or not and devoid of all speculation Jonathan, these are the actual facts but they have yet to appears as such , in any book yet on the case that claims "only to be writing about "The Facts".
Best Wishes
Norma

[Jonathan H]

Yes, well, Natalie, you might have a point there -- unless of course Aaron Kosminski was a too-late suspect and thus completely unknown outside the narrow confines of the CID senior office, a point which I have made several times before.

Anyhow, I have decided not to write on this particular topic because I have nothing new to say, and the vitriol it provokes -- admittedly just subsided to a more positive tone -- is wearing and counter-productive.

Thanks, Stewart, for your words of common sense which act as a circuit-breaker to a not-very-merry-go-round.

To Mike

Do you teach the I.B. course?

[The Good Michael]

Do you teach the I.B. course?

I will be in Chile. Now I teach English to Korean college kids, but I do teach history in a way to Korean professors. I'm charged to teach them conversational English, so I concentrate on historical eras.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

A number of my History students monitor this website

In that case, it should be pointed out that:

a) It's Ridgway, not Ridgeway.

b) It's Schwartz, not Schwarz, or Scawrz

c) It's M.J. Trow, not Mei Trow, which isn't even his real first name. And there is absolutely no excuse for his book.

d) It's Rob House, Rob, or Mr. House, but not Robhouse. That's just being disrespectful.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

You've missed this boat, Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

You've missed this boat, Tom.

Yeah and I missed the Titanic too. Guess I have good luck when it comes to sinking ships. I like you Jonathan, don't get me wrong, I just don't understand you yet. That probably has more to do with me than you though. However, I've seen Rob House around these boards going on a decade and he never once struck me as rude or arrogant.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Hi All,

Back to the purpose of this thread -

Personally speaking I am interested in only all the available information on Anderson being available to all in order that they may draw their own conclusions from it...

...Personally I shall reproduce anything I find out about Anderson, good or bad, and let the facts speak for themselves.

I was aware of this information before it appeared on these boards and I did qualify what I said with the words 'pending confirmation of the source.'

So has anyone learned any more about the memo, who sent the extract to Simon (among others?) and where it was found?

Incidentally, if I have Sir Robert’s date of birth correct it should probably have gone without saying that the memo was dated exactly a week before he was due to hit the big 6-0, and therefore his resignation was ‘requested’ at a point in time that would have allowed for a three-month period of notice (and a chance for all his devoted colleagues and staff to save up for a nice retirement gift ):

Hi All,

Part of a memo from Sir Kenelm Edward Digby [Permanent Under Secretary of State, Home Office] to Charles Thomson Ritchie [Home Secretary], 22nd May 1901—

"About three months ago you requested Mr. Anderson to send in his resignation as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. You were led to take this step in consequence of the necessity which in your view had arisen for alteration in the staff and organization of the Metropolitan Police, which made it desirable for a new appointment to be made to the post held by Mr. Anderson. You were particularly conscious that a fresh appointment should be made to the leadership of the Criminal Investigation Department, of a person who should serve for a considerable time under Sir Edward Bradford . . ."

Regards,

Simon

Put in this context, I could see the request - and the detailed explanation for it - as a diplomatic and timely way of putting it to the old boy that this should be a mutually convenient and natural point for him to retire and make way for the next generation.

At face value, would this be such a big deal? Obviously it will take its place with the rest of the information we have about the man and how others viewed him at various points in his career, but I can’t see at this stage how this wee snippet, on its own, justifies Simon’s ‘How Are The Mighty Fallen’ introduction. Or am I missing something crucial and very obvious here?

Could they not have wanted Edward Henry in, more than they wanted Robert Anderson out?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Back to the purpose of this thread -

Which was to create an adversarial atmosphere by using purposefully antagonistic words in the title?

I thought we stayed inside that framework. Maybe I missed something.

Mike

[caz]

Simion Says?

Hi GM,

Well ok, but if you saw that as Simon's desired purpose, how did he con you into helping him accomplish it?

Love,

Caz
X

PS Whoops, I meant Simon Says. But I wouldn't jump if 'Simion' said it either.

[Stewart P Evans]

Context

So has anyone learned any more about the memo, who sent the extract to Simon (among others?) and where it was found?
Incidentally, if I have Sir Robert’s date of birth correct it should probably have gone without saying that the memo was dated exactly a week before he was due to hit the big 6-0, and therefore his resignation was ‘requested’ at a point in time that would have allowed for a three-month period of notice (and a chance for all his devoted colleagues and staff to save up for a nice retirement gift ):
Put in this context, I could see the request - and the detailed explanation for it - as a diplomatic and timely way of putting it to the old boy that this should be a mutually convenient and natural point for him to retire and make way for the next generation.
At face value, would this be such a big deal? Obviously it will take its place with the rest of the information we have about the man and how others viewed him at various points in his career, but I can’t see at this stage how this wee snippet, on its own, justifies Simon’s ‘How Are The Mighty Fallen’ introduction. Or am I missing something crucial and very obvious here?
Could they not have wanted Edward Henry in, more than they wanted Robert Anderson out?
...
Caz
X

I think that I have already indicated that I don't see anything really derogatory about Anderson in this memo, particularly given the limited context that has been provided.

Given his age and the ever changing police hierarchy it was probably a natural progression. As to Simon's 'How Are The Mighty Fallen' (shouldn't that be 'How The Mighty Are Fallen'?) that, surely, is Simon's own take on it and I am sure that the intelligent reader has the sense arrive at his own conclusion.

As for its source, I have already stated what I think and should I be using it in something I intended to publish then I would ascertain its origin first. Here it is merely up for discussion.