Author: Andrew Lorne Morrison
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:36 pm |        |
| In all the pages of the casebook I find little or no mention of James Monro and think this is a pity as he may hold the key to the mystery of JTR. Monro was head of the CID until shortly before the murders and during most of the Autum of terror he was head of a secret government department. He knew Anderson and Swanson and was in contact with them about the murders. He replaced Warren as Commissioner of the Met. and personally investigated one of the later killings at first thought to be the work of JTR. Thus Monro was extremely well informed about the case. Although he is mentioned in some books, most notably in Howells and Skinner, he remains an elusive figure and surely one worthy of more study - I even remember a theory sugesting he was the killer ! |
Author: Richie
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:36 pm | |
| why did abberline stay quiet after the murders? melvin fairclough mentions a diary that might have been in existence. it's a shame he didn't pick a pen up and write down what he thought (or knew). and what about swanson? i Tend to view him as somebody who would tow the party line, but still. these two men were as close to the investigation as anyone, and yet what they bothered to serve up(random statements, little notes to already existing files,etc.)was pretty feeble when you think about it, as i do. yes, i'm a fan of the conspiracy angle. but does it really matter what position you take to notice the absence of something that should be there? |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:36 pm | |
Probably the most important documents in the Ripper investigation are the various versions of Sir Melville Macnaghten's notes. There is one intriguing piece in the version by Lady Aberconway, discovered by Dan Farson: "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was a beat [sic] near Mitre Square.)
This statement has been held to have been one of Sir Melville's mistakes as there is no mention in any of the existing files as to a Police witness at Mitre Square. Some researchers have suggested that Sir Melville was thinking of one of the three Jews who seem to have seen Eddowes with a man near Mitre Square. There is however, another explanation.
The Swanson marginalia were never meant to be seen by the public: if they were, I am sure that Donald Swanson would have explained some of the problems. On the endpaper of Anderson's memoirs, Swanson wrote: "After the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification and he knew he was identified."
Now the Seaside Home can only have been the Convalescent Police Seaside Home which had been set up by at least March 1890. This being self-evidentally a place for Police Officers to recover from injuries etc. contracted on the job, one has to ask why a suspect would be sent there to be identified. I believe that it is possible that the City PC referred to in Macnaghten's memo. may have been resident there, possibly to seriously ill to be taken to the suspect. The suspect therefore in the manner of Mohammed's mountain was taken to him.
Sir Robert Anderson states: "the only person who ever saw the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him but he refused to give evidence against him." Swanson adds: "because the suspect was also a jew..."
Now I ask, could it be that the City PC mentioned by Sir Melville could have been Jewish? I don't know whether there were any Jewish members of the Police Force at this time. If any one would know it would be Donald Rumbelow. Unfortunately, so many City police records were destroyed during the war. The answer to the whole Ripper problem could have been bombed out of existance over 50 years ago! |
Author: Kevin Hall
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:37 pm | |
| In reference to the debate that has been going on on this page about who the better informed officer's where, let me say this I am a police detective in Houston, Texas, and while Swanson and Anderson may have been the administrative heads of the investigation, it does not quite stand to reason for me to believe that they were the best informed about possible suspects. In my department the heads of an investigation are kept up to date about ongoing investigations by the detectives working in the field, they rarely if ever venture out into the field itself, so Anderson and Swanson would only know what Abberline or the Detectives told them in my opinion. That is not to say that they did not have their own informed opions about the case(most heads of an investigation do)but I would place considerably more weight to suspects raised by the investigators working in the field. |
Author: Gary Nargi
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:37 pm | |
| NYC Police Supt.Byrnes did write a couple of books one the famous "Professional Criminals of New York" sometimes published as "Rogues Gallery"---he claims to have invented the mug shot published in 1886---and collaborated with Helen Campbell and Thomas Knox on "Darkness and Daylight or Lights and Shadows of New York Life" in the late 1890's----the latter is not easy to find but I have seen one a couple of years ago, I don't remember anything about JtR----I'll check again when I get to the library that has it---I don't know where Byrnes personal papers wound up but I'll ask around----19th century NYC cops were a rough and corrupt bunch and I'm not sure how much they wrote down----but who knows?-----gn |
Author: Gerald Hagemann
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:38 pm | |
| In 1995 I visited Bournemouth, to see Inspc. Abberlines house in Holdenhurst Road, and also visited the Wimborne Road Cemetery in Bournemouth, were he and his wife Emma were buried in unmarked graves. The cemetery warden showed me the grave of Abberline - it is still there. The No. you gave in your page about Abberline is right, but the city is wrong. Montague J. Druitt was buried in Wimborne. Frederick Abberline was buried in Bournemouth at Wimborne Rd. Cemetery. |
Author: Anonymous
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 11:21 am | |
| test |
Author: l anseaume
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 06:48 pm | |
| to richie: many police agencies frown upon diarys,personal notes, and records that officers keep for their own personal use because of the sensitivity of some of the material involved. many officers do it anyway without the permission of the department. sometimes they do irreparable harm in doing so by releasing information that may be mis-leading or incorrect. furthermore, the case that is considered closed could by the order of a prosecutor be re-opened and the suspect/suspects could gain information that would help them avoid prosecution. officers occasionaly will cause distrust and defame the department which causes dissension among tis officers[ example: officer a. speaks unfavorably of officer b's handling of a case}. no doubt that most of the retiring officers were usually discreet in the handling of placing "pen to paper" on they worked on. the department that I worked for demanded a signed release and permission from the department before writing anything about the department[ anything that might reflect un-favorably upon the department. |
Author: l anseaume
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 06:51 pm | |
to all: sorry about my terrible typing skills.
haven't done this in awhile. If you have trouble reading some of this , please let me know. |
