Oh, Dear Boss: The Lighter Side of John Malcolm

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

I suggest you read my book, Deconstructing Jack.

It will tell you all about Anderson's various tall stories.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Get a grip, lads. These top police officials weren't in the dark. Anderson was an accomplished liar and Macnaghten played the game.

Swanson appearing to agree with Anderson in his marginalia is one of the worst pranks of all time.

Regards,

Simon

What evidence do we have that Anderson or Macnaghten were liars on this issue Simon? Surely we cant just take the ‘they were all in on it,’ approach. Everyone lies at times including those in power but they would have to have a pretty serious reason to lie on this issue. And if these top men weren’t isolated figures (they of course had colleagues, family and friends) then surely the risk of the lie being passed on would increase massively. Once one person tells another.....

So what I’m saying is that we need tangible reasons for believing them to be liars.

[rjpalmer]

Well, Swanson seems to have had his head screwed on.

That's rather non-committal, Robert. Isn't it standard procedure to indicate which direction his head is screwed on?

[Trevor Marriott]

I simply can't see Anderson and the police getting a positive identification and then finding out the witness won't testify and responding by saying "understood old boy. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day."

c.d.

You missed off “hope you enjoyed the day out at the seaside” 😀

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Get a grip, lads. These top police officials weren't in the dark. Anderson was an accomplished liar and Macnaghten played the game.

Swanson appearing to agree with Anderson in his marginalia is one of the worst pranks of all time.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Lay it on me mates, I can take it. Tell me where I'm wrong and how I'm wrong. Prove that you can teach an old dog new tricks. But please be specific. I don't have the patience to deal with dumb generalizations.

Hi john
Even churchill thought Anderson was a blow hard. Ill go with churchill. Lol.

Seriously, ive got him in my top tier of suspects. Two senior police officers name him and hes the only ripper suspect that has any real evidence against so hes got to be up there.

That being said.... regarding the positive ID-lawende probably said something along the lines of i think thats him but i cant swear to it. Over the years, with wishful thinking, misremembering and or the need to cast himself in a better light, it became the ascertained fact in andersons mind.

Plus, even before the id, anderson seemed to think that the ripper might be jewish, so there may be a bit of preconceived bias there.

And i agree with CD—-if it was actually such a positive ID at the time, such a definite ascertained fact, there is no way they would have let it slide. Throw up the arms oh well. They could have supoened him to testify and either if they couldnt if they thought they had there man they would have charged him and let the chips fall as they may. The pressure was tremendous on them to solve this case.

Now all this being said, i cant throw the baby out with the bathwater, so koz remains a suspect. A weak suspect, but theyre all weak. Some just less weak than others.

[c.d.]

I simply can't see Anderson and the police getting a positive identification and then finding out the witness won't testify and responding by saying "understood old boy. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day."

c.d.

[John Malcolm]

Lay it on me mates, I can take it. Tell me where I'm wrong and how I'm wrong. Prove that you can teach an old dog new tricks. But please be specific. I don't have the patience to deal with dumb generalizations.

[Trevor Marriott]

A number of authorities in the field have accepted what Anderson and Macnaghten wrote at more or less face value, arguing that they were there, they were top officials, and know more than we will ever know. Well, of course, that doesn't necessarily follow. Despite their expressed certainty, they could have been as much in the dark as we are, and probably were. They were just coming up with answers to a mysterious case and really can't be relied upon to know what they were talking about.

Cheers

Chris

I totally agree with you

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Well, Swanson seems to have had his head screwed on. Macnaghten may have had his head screwed on sometimes, but unfortunately relied on his memory for its whereabouts, as he never made notes.

[ChrisGeorge]

This line of reasoning has long been the interpretation of many. Unfortunately it leads to unnecessarily marginalizing Anderson, which in turn encourages the dismissal of the "Polish Jew Theory". It's a convenient way to avoid the confusing details, and it clears the table for imaginary suspects to be served up. That's why the myths surrounding the ex-assistant commissioner should be dispelled. The weight of "evidence" against Anderson looks formidable from a distance, but up close it amounts to an army of laughing gas filled balloons. The man was a divisive character who was equally respected and despised. There are many people in this field who I respect and admire who look at everything Anderson said with suspicion, and rightly so. But it's not good enough reason to opt for what may appear to be the simplest explanation, that the man was just blowing smoke.

A number of authorities in the field have accepted what Anderson and Macnaghten wrote at more or less face value, arguing that they were there, they were top officials, and know more than we will ever know. Well, of course, that doesn't necessarily follow. Despite their expressed certainty, they could have been as much in the dark as we are, and probably were. They were just coming up with answers to a mysterious case and really can't be relied upon to know what they were talking about.

Cheers

Chris

[John Malcolm]

That's long been my interpretation. There was no actual identification, Anderson was just reading between the lines.

This line of reasoning has long been the interpretation of many. Unfortunately it leads to unnecessarily marginalizing Anderson, which in turn encourages the dismissal of the "Polish Jew Theory". It's a convenient way to avoid the confusing details, and it clears the table for imaginary suspects to be served up. That's why the myths surrounding the ex-assistant commissioner should be dispelled. The weight of "evidence" against Anderson looks formidable from a distance, but up close it amounts to an army of laughing gas filled balloons. The man was a divisive character who was equally respected and despised. There are many people in this field who I respect and admire who look at everything Anderson said with suspicion, and rightly so. But it's not good enough reason to opt for what may appear to be the simplest explanation, that the man was just blowing smoke.

[jmenges]

Poetic license, Jonathan.

To put it kindly.

It could be that the witness stated that Kosminski was the person he had seen, but when asked to swear to it, he got cold feet. That would tally with the recollections of the officials and others. What motivated the witness to demur (that the suspect was a fellow jew) to me is the part open to more doubt than that initially a positive ID was made.

JM

[Harry D]

So when Anderson says "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him" (Blackwoods) and "unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"(LSOMOF) and Swanson "And after this identification which suspect knew", "after the suspect had been identified", and "sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified".
-they were both just making an assumption based on nothing but maybe the witnesses body language and then made these pretty definitive statements based on a hunch? I don't see it. To me that opinion is more of a 'hunch' than their statements.

JM

Poetic license, Jonathan.

[jmenges]

So when Anderson says "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him" (Blackwoods) and "unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him"(LSOMOF) and Swanson "And after this identification which suspect knew", "after the suspect had been identified", and "sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified".
-they were both just making an assumption based on nothing but maybe the witnesses body language and then made these pretty definitive statements based on a hunch? I don't see it. To me that opinion is more of a 'hunch' than their statements.

JM