Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

In keeping with the tradition of posting quotes from memoirs and other documents. I thought I would contribute. The following is an extract from Lindsey Clutterbucks Thesis page 54.

“Anderson was appointed to The Metropolitan police as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CID in 1888 and hence resumed operation responsibility for their activities in countering Irish National extremism.

However on the publication of his memoirs in 1906 and a further selection in 1910 his political contemporaries publicly called into question Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness. He was denounced by Sir William Harcourt the Home Secretary at the time of the Irish extremist dynamite campaign of the early 1880s, on the grounds that he was using official information in his private memoirs.

Churchill too was not impressed by the memoirs but his most authoritive critic is probably Bussey (1910) who using his association with Superintendent John Mallon of the Dublin Metropolitan police, a man with firsthand knowledge of many of the events of paints a picture of the Anderson as the man who “Talks a good job” irrespective of his personal involvement in it. Consequently, caution must be exercised in using Anderson as a source.”

This is old and much of it has been the subject of endless discussion, long before Clutterbuck wrote of it, Bussy and Mallon need substantiation. As Phil H has said, a lot of it is political. That's not mincing or twisting words, it's the facts.

[Stewart P Evans]

Trying to say...

[B]...
I have, it is true written to remind that he was a respected and long-serving senior official at the Yard, with great experience. He was involved in many cases over many years. He was THERE and he lived in an era where "gentlemen" lived and were expected to live by a specific if unwritten code.
My last post simply pointed out that your own allegation that "Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness" was in question, was not exactly supported by your examples, as they appeared to be related to Irish political affairs and his sources (not their accuracy).
...
Phil

Phil, I think that what Trevor is trying to say, in his own way, is that in the matter of how trustworthy and reliable Anderson's words are may only be assessed with any accuracy by reference to his peers and his secular literary output.

In this sense one of the most relevant published works of Anderson's is his Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement of 1906, a mere four years before The Lighter Side of My Official Life (1910) in which his bold claims regarding the identity of the Ripper are made. Published the same year as the latter work was a book called Irish Conspiracies Recollections of John Mallon (The Great Irish Detective) and Other Reminiscences, by Frederick Moir Bussy, London, Everett & Co., 1910. Amongst the material used by Bussy in writing this book were annotations made by Mallon in a copy of Anderson's Sidelights (above).

The Bussy book is very critical of Anderson and although published in London the same year as Lighter Side there was, as far as we know (and perhaps significantly) no response from Anderson to this criticism.

Amongst other incidents Bussy quotes the story of Anderson (in his Sidelights book) about Anderson going to see a Fenian prisoner, Godfrey Massey, in his cell at Kilmainham Prison in 1867. Basically, Anderson boasted that he had entered Massey's cell, on his own, at great risk to himself and had 'turned' Massey into an informer, obtaining vital information on the Fenian plotting and uprising of 1867.

Mallon (and Bussy) described Anderson's story as 'a very picturesque account of his participation in the affair', which, as Paul has pointed out, 'is a nice way of accusing Anderson of lying.' Bussy stated that he had 'Mallon's written assurance that that statement is not correct, and that Sir Robert was not the man who did that thing, and as I scent inaccuracy in other statements and claims contained in Side Lights on the Home Rule Movement, and as the book is redolent of prejudice from cover to cover, I elect to believe Mallon.' This is very damaging to Anderson's veracity and reliability as a writer.

Paul Begg has assessed this work in his intriguing article in the latest issue of Ripperologist (issue 121 July 2011), in order to counter the allegation and reinstate Anderson's standing. In the article Paul points out that modern historian Lindsay Clutterbuck uses the Mallon/Bussy material in his An Accident of History? The Evolution of Counter Terrorism Methodology... thesis (2002) where he decides that Anderson's 'most authoritative critic is probably Bussy (1910), who, using his association with Superintendent John Mallon of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, a man with first hand knowledge of many of the events, paints a picture of Anderson as a man who 'talks a good job', irrespective of his personal involvement in it. Consequently, caution must be exercised in using Anderson as a source.'

That, then, is the conclusion of a modern historian, and Paul rightly states that 'Prima facie Bussy/Mallon's claims are damning and Clutterbuck's conclusion is one to be endorsed, and the implications for Anderson's authority on the Ripper are serious, but are Bussy/Mallon's claims correct?' (emphasis mine). Paul examines the material and sources and concludes that they are not correct and ends his essay with 'Is Frederick Moir Bussy, using the authority of John Mallon, really Sir Robert Anderson's "most authoritative critic"? The answer must be no.'

I thoroughly recommend Paul's article to anyone who may be interested.

[PaulB]

Paul Begg has assessed this work in his intriguing article in the latest issue of Ripperologist (issue 121 July 2011), in order to counter the allegation and reinstate Anderson's standing. In the article Paul points out that modern historian Lindsay Clutterbuck uses the Mallon/Bussy material in his An Accident of History? The Evolution of Counter Terrorism Methodology... thesis (2002) where he decides that Anderson's 'most authoritative critic is probably Bussy (1910), who, using his association with Superintendent John Mallon of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, a man with first hand knowledge of many of the events, paints a picture of Anderson as a man who 'talks a good job', irrespective of his personal involvement in it. Consequently, caution must be exercised in using Anderson as a source.'

Thanks, Stewart. I'd just make one small correction, I did not assess Bussy "in order to counter the allegation and reinstate Anderson's standing." Very far from it. As Clutterbuck stated that Bussy was Anderson's "most authoritative critic", I assumed he'd verified what Bussy said and I therefore accepted what Bussy via Mallon had written. I only wanted to check out the circumstances and was already phrasing an article damning to Anderson when I found a trial statement in which Massey was asked who had visited him in prison and his reply was only Anderson. I was frankly surprised. Other criticisms of Anderson similarly lacked substantiation. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that preliminary and almosr casual research didn't find it. The contrary in fact.

[PaulB]

Hunter,
I mistrust the information of anyone,when that information is of such a nature,that it is unable,after serious investigation,to determine the true facts.Now you or anyone like to demonstrate that the facts of an identification,beyond doubt,established the identity of JTR,I would then have nothing to be distrustfull about.

Harry,
This isn't about producing evidence to substantiate Anderson's claim that Jack the Ripper was a certain Polish Jew, or any other claim for that matter, it's about whether or not Anderson et al can be considered trustworthy historical sources - i.e., can we believe that something led them to write what they wrote? Generally they meet tried and trusted criteria: they were there, there were in a position to know, and so on. How far we can trust them is another matter, hence various ideas being advanced about their possible biases, such as the suggestion that Anderson and Macnaghten were ashamed that the Ripper wasn't caught, or that Anderson was anti-Semitic.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry...

Thanks, Stewart. I'd just make one small correction, I did not assess Bussy "in order to counter the allegation and reinstate Anderson's standing." Very far from it.
...

Sorry about that Paul, I really should stop postulating the thought processes of others, an old police habit.

[Phil H]

It would be a fool, Stewart, who sought to question your magisterial post and authoritative mastery of the sources.

Nevertheless, I would comment this:

There will be rivalries and under-currents in any office or organisation. I could poibnt to collaegues here who will self-aggrandise their achievements and role in the interests of enhancing their position, or simply because it is their nature or arises from their apparently complete self-confidence. Equally there will be others who react to that (do they feel comparatively diminished, or simply recent someone else taking laurels - maybe later, by undercutting what others claim or questioning the record. "He might say that, but it was me that dunnit?"

Chiefs, in my experience, often take credit for the work of the "indians" at lower levels, who support and brief them. In something like the "Good friday Agrement" do the principals or the "sherpas" get the majority of the credit for the outcome.

On a separate point - Anderson's apparent failure to respond to damaging criticism of his veracity - one response, often adopted, is not to deign to notice what has been said. That avoids further debate and can play on the "nine day wonder" principle.

I don't doubt Anderson was arrogant and jealous of his achievement, intellectually assured (whether justifiably or not) and very conscious of his reputation. I have met many senior civil servants who would readily claim certainty where others might have doubts - because they were realists or believed they could cut through the minutiae to the crux of an issue. That is one of the key skills of the English bureaucrat (along with the ability to precis and to see both sides of an argument and demolish either or both as required).

None of that counters what you or Paul B have said, and you are much more qualified than I to judge.

I do think that Anderson needs to be seen against the background of his time, his profession and his humanity, though.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Phil H;192691]It would be a fool, Stewart, who sought to question your magisterial post and authoritative mastery of the sources.

Nevertheless, I would comment this:

There will be rivalries and under-currents in any office or organisation. I could poibnt to collaegues here who will self-aggrandise their achievements and role in the interests of enhancing their position, or simply because it is their nature or arises from their apparently complete self-confidence. Equally there will be others who react to that (do they feel comparatively diminished, or simply recent someone else taking laurels - maybe later, by undercutting what others claim or questioning the record. "He might say that, but it was me that dunnit?"

Chiefs, in my experience, often take credit for the work of the "indians" at lower levels, who support and brief them. In something like the "Good friday Agrement" do the principals or the "sherpas" get the majority of the credit for the outcome.

On a separate point - Anderson's apparent failure to respond to damaging criticism of his veracity - one response, often adopted, is not to deign to notice what has been said. That avoids further debate and can play on the "nine day wonder" principle.

I don't doubt Anderson was arrogant and jealous of his achievement, intellectually assured (whether justifiably or not) and very conscious of his reputation. I have met many senior civil servants who would readily claim certainty where others might have doubts - because they were realists or believed they could cut through the minutiae to the crux of an issue. That is one of the key skills of the English bureaucrat (along with the ability to precis and to see both sides of an argument and demolish either or both as required).

None of that counters what you or Paul B have said, and you are much more qualified than I to judge.

I do think that Anderson needs to be seen against the background of his time, his profession and his humanity, though.

Phil[/QUOTE

I think you said you were a working civil servant well I am bit concerned to think that I am paying my taxes for you to sit here all day writing and replying to posts when you are supposed to be working

[Stewart P Evans]

Sir Robert Anderson wrote...

In his 1906 book The Lighter Side of the Home Rule Movement Sir Robert Anderson wrote -

This task led to my being asked to undertake another, of a much more delicate and difficult kind, namely, to secure one of the more important prisoners as "Queen's evidence" at the approaching trials. It was rather a strain upon professional etiquette, but a barrister may discharge any duty sanctioned by the leader of the Bar, and it was for the Attorney-General I was acting. Armed with plenary powers, I visited the gaol. It did not take long to discover that Godfrey Massey was incomparably the ablest and best informed of the prisoners. And I found, moreover, that his indignation was deep at the deceit and cowardice of Stephens, Kelly, and the other American leaders. I then took the Governor of the Prison into my confidence, and asked him to smuggle me into Massey's cell, and to get me out again unobserved. It was possible, he said, only if I consented to go in during the warders' dinner-hour, and to remain till after locking-up time.
This was an ordeal at best, and not without risk, for Massey was a powerful man, of a passionate temper, and in no amiable frame of mind just then. But I faced it; and, after half a dozen hours in the cell, I left Kilmainham Gaol in possession of the whole story of the "Insurrection plot". (emphasis mine).

In the Bussy book we find -

As to the debacle of the Fenian movement in 1868, I do not think I need trouble here. The infamous John Joseph Corrydon, one of the Revolutionary officers, who was confidentially in the pay of the Government, under circumstances I have set out elsewhere, "gave the game away as far as Godfrey Massey was concerned. The special mission of the latter was to pull up the railway at Limerick Junction so as to cut communication between Dublin and Cork and enable the cable office at Valentia to be seized and the proclamation of an Irish Republic despatched to America. Massey was a fine fellow and a brave man, who had nothing of the informer's instinct about him. He was probably the best of the lot of that particular brood with whom he was dealing, but he was disheartened when his own schemes tumbled to pieces. He smelt treachery; he believed that most, if not all, of his confreres were steeped in duplicity and that it was through their cowardice, if not their actual machinations, that he found himself in the position he then was, and he made a clean breast of it.
It does not appear to me, at this distance of time, to be of any very material importance how Masset actually made his confession; but as Sir Robert Anderson gives a very picturesque account of his participation in the affair, in "Side Lights on the Home Rule Movement," I take leave to give it in extensor. This is what Sir Robert says:- [Then follows the extract from Anderson above]...
I have Mallon's written assurance that that statement is not correct, and that Sir Robert was not the man who did that thing, and as I scent inaccuracy in other statements and claims contained in "Side Lights on the Home Rule Movement," and as the book is redolent of prejudice from cover to cover, I elect to believe Mallon.

I have here set out the relevant passages in both books. What we must not do is assume that Bussy/Mallon meant that Anderson did not even visit the cell, for he did. What Bussy/Mallon is actually saying is that Anderson's account is 'very picturesque' and that he did not 'discover' Massey as ' incomparably the ablest and best informed of the prisoners'; that he 'took the Governor of the Prison into my confidence'; and that with 'risk' to himself he faced the ordeal of confronting Massey and obtained his confession.

A study of the contemporary records show that Massey swore the information about two weeks after his arrest. Massey actually invited a government representative to take his information and asked the Governor of the Prison (Mr. Price) to arrange it, which he did.

Asked at the trial, under oath, "Who brought Mr. Anderson to you?" Massey replied, "I suppose it was my invitation."
"What brought him to you?" - "I sent for him."
"Had you told any person before you sent for him you intended to give information?" - "No, except to the governor of the prison, Mr. Price."

This, really, shows that the Bussy/Mallon reference to Anderson's account of the incident is correct and it was, indeed, 'very picturesque'.

[John Bennett]

My own perception of Anderson, from what I have experienced from his writings, is merely that he appears to be opinionated to the point of arrogance. A strong character indeed. Littlechild's comment that Anderson 'only thought he knew' goes some way to helping me think that. Also we see SRA's dogged pursuit of the accidental death verdict on Rose Mylett as another example.

It would be very easy for me to state that Anderson gilded the lily, but I'm not going to go down that road. The counter-argument is Swanson, who appears (in the marginalia) to corroborate SRA's claims. Here we have a senior officer (and a career policeman at that) who has no horse in this race because his marginalia were private notes.

It's a rather simplistic view on my part, and no doubt one that may change the more I learn about these men. When it comes to the police officials in the Ripper case, I'm still a bit green.

[PaulB]

Sorry about that Paul, I really should stop postulating the thought processes of others, an old police habit.

It's not a problem, just that I really did suppose that Clutterbuck had checked it out. I thought it was great that maybe this really was something hard that would reveal more of Anderson's complexities. It turned out to be otherwise. Maybe further research will change things.

[Stewart P Evans]

To summarise...

To summarise the foregoing, Anderson's account was, I agree, 'very picturesque' and misleading. What Anderson wrote, as measured against the sworn trial evidence is as follows. Anderson claimed -

'Armed with plenary powers, I visited the gaol. It did not take long to discover that Godfrey Massey was incomparably the ablest and best informed of the prisoners...I then took the Governor of the Prison into my confidence, and asked him to smuggle me into Massey's cell and to get me out again unobserved...This was an ordeal at best, and not without risk, for Massey was a powerful man, of a passionate temper, and in no amiable frame of mind just then. But I faced it; and, after half a dozen hours in his cell, I left Kilmainham Gaol in possession of the whole story of the "Insurrection plot".'

This claim is at odds with the trial transcript which shows that Massey had swooned on being arrested and was a broken, disappointed and betrayed man. Any animus he had was directed at those he saw as betraying him. Anderson had not visited the prison of his own accord, 'discovered' that Massey would make the best informant, 'taken the Governor of the Prison into his confidence' and 'at risk' to himself faced the 'ordeal' of obtaining 'the whole story of the 'Insurrection plot' from Massey.

On the contrary, Massey had already decided to turn informer and was very compliant. He had already seen Mr. Price, the prison governor, to this effect and had, himself, asked to see Anderson in order to do this.

[PaulB]

In his 1906 book The Lighter Side of the Home Rule Movement Sir Robert Anderson wrote -

This task led to my being asked to undertake another, of a much more delicate and difficult kind, namely, to secure one of the more important prisoners as "Queen's evidence" at the approaching trials. It was rather a strain upon professional etiquette, but a barrister may discharge any duty sanctioned by the leader of the Bar, and it was for the Attorney-General I was acting. Armed with plenary powers, I visited the gaol. It did not take long to discover that Godfrey Massey was incomparably the ablest and best informed of the prisoners. And I found, moreover, that his indignation was deep at the deceit and cowardice of Stephens, Kelly, and the other American leaders. I then took the Governor of the Prison into my confidence, and asked him to smuggle me into Massey's cell, and to get me out again unobserved. It was possible, he said, only if I consented to go in during the warders' dinner-hour, and to remain till after locking-up time.
This was an ordeal at best, and not without risk, for Massey was a powerful man, of a passionate temper, and in no amiable frame of mind just then. But I faced it; and, after half a dozen hours in the cell, I left Kilmainham Gaol in possession of the whole story of the "Insurrection plot". (emphasis mine).

In the Bussy book we find -

As to the debacle of the Fenian movement in 1868, I do not think I need trouble here. The infamous John Joseph Corrydon, one of the Revolutionary officers, who was confidentially in the pay of the Government, under circumstances I have set out elsewhere, "gave the game away as far as Godfrey Massey was concerned. The special mission of the latter was to pull up the railway at Limerick Junction so as to cut communication between Dublin and Cork and enable the cable office at Valentia to be seized and the proclamation of an Irish Republic despatched to America. Massey was a fine fellow and a brave man, who had nothing of the informer's instinct about him. He was probably the best of the lot of that particular brood with whom he was dealing, but he was disheartened when his own schemes tumbled to pieces. He smelt treachery; he believed that most, if not all, of his confreres were steeped in duplicity and that it was through their cowardice, if not their actual machinations, that he found himself in the position he then was, and he made a clean breast of it.
It does not appear to me, at this distance of time, to be of any very material importance how Masset actually made his confession; but as Sir Robert Anderson gives a very picturesque account of his participation in the affair, in "Side Lights on the Home Rule Movement," I take leave to give it in extensor. This is what Sir Robert says:- [Then follows the extract from Anderson above]...
I have Mallon's written assurance that that statement is not correct, and that Sir Robert was not the man who did that thing, and as I scent inaccuracy in other statements and claims contained in "Side Lights on the Home Rule Movement," and as the book is redolent of prejudice from cover to cover, I elect to believe Mallon.

I have here set out the relevant passages in both books. What we must not do is assume that Bussy/Mallon meant that Anderson did not even visit the cell, for he did. What Bussy/Mallon is actually saying is that Anderson's account is 'very picturesque' and that he did not 'discover' Massey as ' incomparably the ablest and best informed of the prisoners'; that he 'took the Governor of the Prison into my confidence'; and that with 'risk' to himself he faced the ordeal of confronting Massey and obtained his confession.

A study of the contemporary records show that Massey swore the information about two weeks after his arrest. Massey actually invited a government representative to take his information and asked the Governor of the Prison (Mr. Price) to arrange it, which he did.

Asked at the trial, under oath, "Who brought Mr. Anderson to you?" Massey replied, "I suppose it was my invitation."
"What brought him to you?" - "I sent for him."
"Had you told any person before you sent for him you intended to give information?" - "No, except to the governor of the prison, Mr. Price."

This, really, shows that the Bussy/Mallon reference to Anderson's account of the incident is correct and it was, indeed, 'very picturesque'.

Indeed it does, but it isn't the picturesque account that matters so much as the assertion that "Sir Robert was not the man who did that thing", which implies that it was someone else who did it. But the records show that it was Anderson who did it. The essential facts are correct, Anderson did go into Massey's cell, did take the evidence, and for all I know may have felt that there was some risk to himself. Anderson coloured it, but we've always known he was like that.

[PaulB]

To summarise the foregoing, Anderson's account was, I agree, 'very picturesque' and misleading. What Anderson wrote, as measured against the sworn trial evidence is as follows. Anderson claimed -

'Armed with plenary powers, I visited the gaol. It did not take long to discover that Godfrey Massey was incomparably the ablest and best informed of the prisoners...I then took the Governor of the Prison into my confidence, and asked him to smuggle me into Massey's cell and to get me out again unobserved...This was an ordeal at best, and not without risk, for Massey was a powerful man, of a passionate temper, and in no amiable frame of mind just then. But I faced it; and, after half a dozen hours in his cell, I left Kilmainham Gaol in possession of the whole story of the "Insurrection plot".'

This claim is at odds with the trial transcript which shows that Massey had swooned on being arrested and was a broken, disappointed and betrayed man. Any animus he had was directed at those he saw as betraying him. Anderson had not visited the prison of his own accord, 'discovered' that Massey would make the best informant, 'taken the Governor of the Prison into his confidence' and 'at risk' to himself faced the 'ordeal' of obtaining 'the whole story of the 'Insurrection plot' from Massey.

On the contrary, Massey had already decided to turn informer and was very compliant. He had already seen Mr. Price, the prison governor, to this effect and had, himself, asked to see Anderson in order to do this.

Massey's wife had, I seem to recall, placed pressure on him to spill the beans, and he was compliant, but whether or not he could still have been dangerous is uncertain. In Massey's shoes I think I might have been a bit of a powder keg, sent on a mission that was doomed to failure by an organisation riddled with informers, and not even getting off the station platform before the hand of the law quite literally landed on my shoulder.

[Stewart P Evans]

Judge

Indeed it does, but it isn't the picturesque account that matters so much as the assertion that "Sir Robert was not the man who did that thing", which implies that it was someone else who did it. But the records show that it was Anderson who did it. The essential facts are correct, Anderson did go into Massey's cell, did take the evidence, and for all I know may have felt that there was some risk to himself. Anderson coloured it, but we've always known he was like that.

Well, I'll leave that for others to judge Paul.

Bussy/Mallon did not deny that Anderson went into the cell. What they said was that Anderson's statement was not correct and that Anderson was not the man who 'did that thing.' You are saying that they meant that he didn't even go into the cell but I am saying that I read it as Anderson did not identify Massey as an informant (which he obviously didn't); that Anderson engineered himself into Massey's cell (which he didn't, Massey had asked to see him to give his information and had asked the governor to arrange it before Anderson was even called) and that there was risk involved for Anderson (which, patently there wasn't).

Anderson didn't take the evidence he noted it, the written full statement was taken later at Dublin Castle by Samuel Lee Anderson, Anderson's elder brother, who was the Crown Solicitor.

Bussy writes 'Sir Robert Anderson writes a very picturesque account of his participation in the affair', which indicates that they know that he took part in it. I think the initial official contact at Kilmainham in order to see what Massey was prepared to say was Anderson's only involvement in this particular episode so they don't actually deny he was involved. They do, however, deny that it was Anderson who made the initial approach, that he actually 'turned' Massey and that there was any risk involved. All of which is true.

[Stewart P Evans]

Questions...

Massey's wife had, I seem to recall, placed pressure on him to spill the beans, and he was compliant, but whether or not he could still have been dangerous is uncertain. In Massey's shoes I think I might have been a bit of a powder keg, sent on a mission that was doomed to failure by an organisation riddled with informers, and not even getting off the station platform before the hand of the law quite literally landed on my shoulder.

Questions of Massey at the trial -

"Was it entirely your own thought and suggestion to turn informer?" - "Not for myself."

"Was it suggested to you by any one else, or was it from mere thought?" - "I did it of my own thought."

And no one suggested it to you?" - " Not at that time."

"Why do you say at that time"? - "It was myself that sent for him; that is the only answer I can give."

What did you mean by saying "at that time"? - "Afterwards I wavered, and my wife asked me to give information."

"Before you wavered you had given some information?" - "Yes."

"Had you given Mr. Anderson full information?" - "No."

"You did not tell everything you told us this day?" - "No."

When reading the evidence at this stage it is necessary to remember that there were two 'Mr. Andersons', Robert (seen at the prison) and Samuel Lee (seen at Dublin Castle).