Anderson Up....or Anderson Down

[How Brown]

Forum for discussing....pro and con...and hopefully civil....Sir Robert Anderson and his role in the Whitechapel Murders, before,during,and after the Case had long since wound down........

.............. Including his personal activity during the investigation, his writings, and his ultra-important declaration that Jack The Ripper/ The Whitechapel Murderer had been captured and identified.
_________________________________

[Paul]

Forum for discussing....pro and con...and hopefully civil....Sir Robert Anderson and his role in the Whitechapel Murders, before,during,and after the Case had long since wound down........

.............. Including his personal activity during the investigation, his writings, and his ultra-important declaration that Jack The Ripper/ The Whitechapel Murderer had been captured and identified.
_________________________________

Hi Howard,
As mentioned elsewhere and a plea I would like to reiterate, what would be especially valuable is if people could find and state the support for claims made about Anderson and if possible cite and quote their sources in as much detail as possible.

For example, many people have argued that Anderson was anti-Semitic, but what evidence is there for that? And even if Anderson was anti-Semitic, was he simply reflecting the general attitude of the time? Anderson himself denied that he was anti-Semitic, claiming that his religious writings showed that he had a high regard for Jews and their religion and he claimed also to count many Jews among his personal friends. What truth is there for this claim? What argues against it?

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. B :

Perhaps we might want to establish which specific pro or con argument or theorization regarding SRA so that there will be a continuity to the thread.

Lets begin with what you have mentioned here first...that being:

"For example, many people have argued that Anderson was anti-Semitic, but what evidence is there for that? And even if Anderson was anti-Semitic, was he simply reflecting the general attitude of the time? Anderson himself denied that he was anti-Semitic, claiming that his religious writings showed that he had a high regard for Jews and their religion and he claimed also to count many Jews among his personal friends. What truth is there for this claim? What argues against it?

One can be anti-Jewish and have Jewish friends....just like one can be anti-Irish and have Irish friends. We see this every day.

No documentation exists,of course,other than SRA's rebuttal to the few retorts made about the implications of his remarks on Jews and the identity of the killer. In other words, all we have to go on are these rebuttals, which should suffice and allow SRA to be given the benefit of the doubt.

Personally,with all due respect, I don't find whether or not SRA was reflecting the general attitude of the time to be that relevant. Its an attitude that has been diminished certainly, but not totally "eradicated" as it exists even today.

SRA probably did have several Jewish friends....but I'd wager that most of them, if not all, as well as his non-Jewish friends were , were of a specific class ( economic & social ) and not of the poor, proletarian, anarchist and unassimilated variety.

I think ( cannot prove ) that SRA's slip of the tongue in the Blackwood's article reveals this class prejudice. A prejudice that most of us on this site as well as those in 1888 harbor for "The Have Nots" or the "Other". It may not be blatant, but it exists nonetheless with many, not all people.

The Jews SRA was amiable with were...in the final analysis...not of the sort that inhabited the halls of Whitehall, the gentlemans' clubs, the soirees', or those excluded from arenas that even assimilated Jews would not count as friends. Like follows like.

Thats my take on the anti-Jewish argument. Thank you.

Back to you, Mr. B....and everyone else.

[Paul]

No documentation exists,of course,other than SRA's rebuttal to the few retorts made about the implications of his remarks on Jews and the identity of the killer. In other words, all we have to go on are these rebuttals, which should suffice and allow SRA to be given the benefit of the doubt.

What, though, is the evidence for his anti-Semitism?

Personally,with all due respect, I don't find whether or not SRA was reflecting the general attitude of the time to be that relevant. Its an attitude that has been diminished certainly, but not totally "eradicated" as it exists even today.

I think I have to disagree with you there. I don't quite knoew how to express this succinctly, but here goes: Anderson's supposed anti-Semitism is relevant only if it disposed him towards believing that Jack the Ripper was a Jew or made him less critical in his assessment of the evidence against a Jew than it would have been had the suspect been a Gentile. Viewed from the perspective of post-holocaust times, any negative comment about a Jew can look anti-Semitic and carry with it all sorts of implications, but this was not necessarilly the case back in 1888 when the negative comment would merely have reflected widespread general opinion and not suggest any predisposition to think a Jew likely to have committed the murders or to be less critical of the evidence against a Jew. It's therefore important to state precisely what things Anderson has written that people think are anti-Semitic and then see whether there were in fact out of step with what other people thought.

SRA probably did have several Jewish friends....but I'd wager that most of them, if not all, as well as his non-Jewish friends were , were of a specific class ( economic & social ) and not of the poor, proletarian, anarchist and unassimilated variety.

I'm sure they were, but then again I don't expect Anderson would have mxed much outside his class anyway. The fact that your Welsh friends mainly share uour interest in Jack the Ripper doesn't mean that you are otherwise anti non-Ripperologist Welshmen. Okay, maybe that's a bad example...

I think ( cannot prove ) that SRA's slip of the tongue in the Blackwood's article reveals this class prejudice. A prejudice that most of us on this site as well as those in 1888 harbor for "The Have Nots" or the "Other". It may not be blatant, but it exists nonetheless with many, not all people.

Here's an example of what I'd like to see here, or rather it's an example of what I'd rather not see, namely a reference to a 'slip in Blackwoods' - what slip? Let's know what it is, then we can see whether it was a slip or not and what it reveals.

I thank you, as Arthur Askey used to say.

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. B:

I appear to have made myself misunderstood in the previous post...I'm not claiming that SRA was anti-Jewish, rather I think he was prone to the same sort of class elitism ( having friends in certain classes of any stripe ) rather than provincialism/ racism. Again, I think that for a man like SRA or any person in fact, that thats a personal choice. Its also why I feel that we shouldn't paint SRA with a broad brush as an anti-Jewish individual...and we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt when he states he had Jewish friends. Thats why I mentioned that we have only the documentation from his rebuttals to refer to and they in fact express his amicable relations with Jewish individuals...

"It's therefore important to state precisely what things Anderson has written that people think are anti-Semitic and then see whether there were in fact out of step with what other people thought.--Mr.B

Exactly...and there are none. Again, thats why we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was not anti-Jewish...but at least expressing a "class prejudice" towards...and in this particular,not lone case....those individuals who happened to be Jewish and from a social strata he probably frowned on....just like most people did and still do...regardless of ethnic stripe.

As a brief example...anyone who knows me knows I am Eurocentric. Yet, I don't hesitate for a second to poke fun of what we refer to as "white trash", "hillbillies" or people from New Jersey. If someone wanted to make an issue of whether or not I disliked White people in general based on my ribbing of these enclaves of whites, they would miss the overall picture. I'm not anti-White...I'm just expressing a disdain for particular elements within our Caucasian gene pool. Okay, so I ain't nuts about the French...but you get my drift.

In regard to what I mentioned about a "slip of the tongue" in the Blackwood's article...perhaps thats not the proper term. Its not really so sinister...

All I meant was that SRA simply and unhesitatingly expressed his class-based and elitist view that Jews of a particular social strata....in this case "low class" ( read= proletarian & unassimilated and not the bourgeosie sort ) Polish Jews....would not turn one of their own over to Gentile justice. I doubt if he had that much social intercourse with enough individuals of and from this particular enclave of East End Jews to make that statement. In other words, he based this statement on the number of Jews he encountered and certainly not all of them. Thats physically impossible.

Its analogous to Joe Sixpack reading several theories on the WM from the minds and writings of Irish Ripperologists and seeing some sort of pattern in their theorization and then determining that ALL Irish Ripperologists "think the same" based on a limited contact.

Back to you Mr. B....and I also would like to see where someone can claim SRA as being anti-Jewish ( I avoid the term anti-Semitic,because we aren't talking about Arabs...or at least not yet and most Jews were Ashkenazim anyway.

[Paul]

The problem here, I think, is twofold. One is that ‘low-class Polish Jews’ is seen as an elitist description, the other is that Anderson’s statement about Low-class Polish Jews not handing one of their own over to Gentile justice is thought to be Anderson's opinion and not one which was based on any first-hand experience.

To treat the latter first, it is undoubtedly true that Anderson would have had about as much experience of low-class Polish Jews as I have of Martians, but there is no reason to suppose that he was voicing his own opinion. You’ll recall that Harry Cox and his men had to resort to subterfuge when maintaining surveillance on a Jewish suspect because otherwise the locals would not have helped them. And that Frederick Porter Wensley in Detective Days said that the Jewish victims of a gang ‘were more loath than Britishers to call for help or give information to the police’.

As for low-class Polish Jews being an elitist comment, maybe it was – these were very class-conscious times – but it was also, I think, a legitimate descriptive term not restricted alone to Anderson, ‘Low-class’ gets used a lot in the newspapers:
'was found lying inside a gateway in Berner-street, a turning off the Commercial-road, inhabited mostly by Polish Jews and low-class labourers...' (East London Observer, 6/10/1888
'a suspicious-looking character in a low-class German coffee-house' (The Star, 9/10/1888
'the superstition in question was clearly proved at the trial as existing among the low-class Jews of Galicia.' I(Evening News), 16/10/1888

And so on.

[How Brown]

Thanks for the reply Mr. B...

"The problem here, I think, is twofold. One is that ‘low-class Polish Jews’ is seen as an elitist description, the other is that Anderson’s statement about Low-class Polish Jews not handing one of their own over to Gentile justice is thought to be Anderson's opinion and not one which was based on any first-hand experience."--Mr.B

No sir..."Mentor" also expressed such sentiment ( as you mention in The Facts on page 360) about the probable inclination of "low class Jews" ( which in the scheme of things includes every newly arrived ethnic group to any nation if we think about it ) to be averse to rolling over on one of "their own". Fishman as well and Berman of course in our time elaborate on that "issue".

The addition of Cox's & Fred Wensley's recollections also seem to support the notion of a less than reciprocal relationship between "low class Jews" and British police. But do they in reality?

The sense that the goy police force would not be able to prevent retaliation from fellow Jewish criminals is understandable, since this happens between individuals within the same ethnic group and from outside the victimized members of a particular ethnicity even today. Certain sorts of crimes occur with the victims NOT wanting assistance from local authorities or desiring further inquiry,since they may have also done something contrary to the law. I refer to drug gangs not rolling over on other gangs to the police after they get nicked for a few pounds of drugs and some degree of violence is the reason the police get involved ( for instance ) and know that further scrutiny by the police will reveal that they weren't exactly kosher either. They take their lumps,won't roll over, and decide to get their cache of dope back on their terms without ever revealing the stolen dope in the first place.

In the case of Cox, although it is probable that he is accurate in his recollections of that incident, it may be a case of him & his subordinates not using the right bait to catch the fish they were after in the first place and eventually resulting in that degree of subterfuge.

As for low-class Polish Jews being an elitist comment, maybe it was – these were very class-conscious times – but it was also, I think, a legitimate descriptive term not restricted alone to Anderson, ‘Low-class’ gets used a lot in the newspapers:
'was found lying inside a gateway in Berner-street, a turning off the Commercial-road, inhabited mostly by Polish Jews and low-class labourers...' (East London Observer, 6/10/1888
'a suspicious-looking character in a low-class German coffee-house' (The Star, 9/10/1888
'the superstition in question was clearly proved at the trial as existing among the low-class Jews of Galicia.' I(Evening News), 16/10/1888---Mr. B

I understand what you are driving at here...in that this term "low class Jews" was a polite way of not claiming all Jews were low class....as it would for "low class Irish" or "low class Poles" and delineating the class distinction.

However,Mr. B....SRA is insistent that its a definitely ascertained fact that low class Jews would not roll over on one of their own....and he infers all of them are. This may be true in minor offenses as Berman,Mentor,& Fishman have posited in the past....but in this instance and this instance alone, for the low class Jews or their "community" to allow the Ripper to be in their presence without rolling over on him and knowing the person under suspicion might be the man the police were looking for, would result in problems of a degree unlike which they had ever encountered before. Assuming that this "low class" community was as tight as what Berman,Mentor,et al...posit they were, they, this low class coterie of East End Jews, appear incredibly naive as to what lay in store for them should they actually be connected to Whitechapel Murderer in any way,shape or form.

Back to you sor...and enjoy the soup. Nina says, "You're welcome..."

[Magpie]

Hi Paul.

I apologize for the delay--work was a nightmare.

Let me preface my comments by saying that when I described Anderson as an anti-semite, I by no means envisage some slavering, holocaust-denying, swastika-painting goon. I don't even believe that Anderson particularly hated Jews.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that Anderson probably honestly believed that he was not an anti-semite, and that his anti-semitism was along the lines of the "they're a marvelous people, of course, but I wouldn't want my sister to marry one" variety.

I also concede that Anderson's view weren't particular extreme, or even unusual, for his time and class. Lastly, I agree that his views of Jews needn't necessarily have hindered his handling of the Ripper case, except that he explicitly claims in "Lighter Side..." that he first came to the conclusion that the Ripper was a Jew, protected by Jews, in the wake of the double event, but that "...the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point".

Given the time lapse between Anderson's "conclusion" and the Seaside Home ID, it's hardly a stretch to suggest that, in the absence of of Kosminski's ID and no known or recorded evidence supporting Anderson's "conclusion", Anderson was predisposed to believe that the Ripper was a Jew.

I also believe his feelings may have lead him to extrapolate Swanson's belief that his witness's refusal to testify against Kosminski was because they were both Jews into an unsubstantiated claim that the Jewish population as a whole was either protecting the Ripper, or would have protected him.*

I think the following points make my belief a reasonable inference:

1) Anderson was alone in his public assertion that Jews would not turn over the Ripper to Gentiles. His superiors and subordinates either didn't agree with him, or recognized that such statements were undiplomatic and chose to say nothing.

2) Major Henry Smith, in From Constable To Commissioner, takes Anderson to task for his comments about the Jews:

Sir Robert talks of the "Lighter Side" of his Official Life." There is nothing "light" here ; a heavier indictment could not be framed against a class whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of the Metropolis.

Whatever your opinion of Smith, it can't be denied that his response to Anderson shows that Anderson's contemporaries, even without the modern spectre of the holocaust to influence their thinking, were capable of concluding that Anderson's comments were a slander against Jews.

3) In the Lighter Side of My Official Life, Anderson takes some pains to immediately qualify his statements about Jews. It's not unreasonable to infer from that Anderson recognized that his comments were going to be controversial--or at the very least undiplomatic--if he hadn't possibly already faced such criticism concerning his views.


*I acknowledge that my belief that Swanson's was Anderson's source rather than vice-versa is a personal opinion not shared by many. Feel free to ignore this paragraph if you wish :)

[Paul]

Howard,
You make fair points soupmeister. However, could I just observe that Wensley acknowledges that both ‘Britisher’ and Jew were reluctant to give evidence against the gang, but that the Jews were more reluctant to do so. There may have been many reasons for this, one of which may indeed have been doubt that the police could prevent retaliation, but the fact nevertheless remains that they were more reluctant. As for Cox, whilst one can suppose that he and his colleagues mishandled things, we need some evidence to support that contention before it can be used to throw doubt on what a source says. It’s equally possible that Cox told the truth.

Frankly, I don’t know whether low-class Polish Jews really were reluctant to seek the help of the police or not. I have given a couple of examples which might suggest that they were and I can cite contemporary and later writers who have given good reasons why the immigrant Jewish community may distrusted the police and been frightened of doing anything that drew undue attention to them or risked causing anti-Semitic or anti-immigrant violence. But the fact remains that Anderson and the ‘we’ apparently thought that the immigrant Jews didn't hand one of their own over to the authorities and this in turn suggested that the murderer was an immigrant Jew.

As for the 'low class coterie of East End Jews' being 'incredibly naive', it rather depends on how you interpret what Anderson is saying. Whilst the conclusion that the Ripper was a low-class Polish Jew was based on a perceived reluctance of the East End Jewish community to hand one of their own over to Gentile justice, it seems to me to be clear that he did not mean that the whole East End immigrant population or even a small part of it protected the murderer.

What Anderson actually says - and I've quoted it in full below - in my view is that the murderer would have been bloodstained and either lived alone and could get rid of the bloodstains unobserved, or he lived with people who must have entertained strong suspicions but who did not communicate them to the police. It is clear, to me at least, that Anderson was talking about the murderer living alone or with a family (or at a push fellow lodgers - but people in the context of 'his people' would mean 'family'). There are, of course, lots of reasons why a mother wouldn't turn in a son or a brother wouldn't turn in a brother. Anderson, though, thought the family were most likely low-class Polish Jews because low-class Polish Jews were more than usually reluctant to hand one of their own over to Gentile justice.




One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type ; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders ; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house to house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice. And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. B :

"And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were (certain) low class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of ( that) class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.-Mr. B quoting SRA

In essence, and correct me if I am wrong...Anderson is specifying one,two,or perhaps a handful of low class Polish Jews when he states "certain" in parentheses above. Regardless of an exact number, he is being specific in this sense, is that the gist here?

He then generalizes the reluctance of East End Jews in that class to protect or safeguard one of their own in general instances of criminal behavior or law-breaking when he states that it is a remarkable fact that people of "that" class in the E.E. will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

Is this how you percieve the sentence mentioned by SRA above?

To me, and this is why I percieve some sort of blanket assessment inference with SRA...on the one hand he appears he is being specific about the "certain" EE Jews...but then in the very same sentence is being generic regarding them and again , to me, it smacks of a stereotypical appraisal.

The issue of whether or not SRA contradicts himself about the apprehension and all that will come later on in the thread....but for now, do you see what I see in that sentence or is it just me?

Magpie...I ask you the same thing...is it just my slant on the sentence and/or am I incorrect in my perception here?

[Paul]

Hi Magpie,
So basically there is no evidence that Anderson was anti-Semitic beyond the few comments he made when expressing his belief that Jack the Ripper was a certain low-class Polish Jew?

And as we have no idea whether whether his statement about low-class Polish Jews being reluctant to hand one of their own over to Gentile justice was peculiarly Anderson’s own opinion or a widespread opinion within the police based on some sort of genuine evidence, then it’s possible that even what he said wasn’t anti-Semitic, anti-Jew, anti-immigrant or anti anything at all. It would simply have been a plain statement of perceived fact?

In fact, Anderson may not have had in mind the religion of the person at all. He may have simply been using a common descriptive term for the immigrant population arrived from Eastern Europe? In other words, if an area was largely composed of immigrant Irish, immigrant Italians, immigrant Polish Jews and local born, and I thought some sort of distinguishing feature suggested that the criminal belonged to the Polish Jew community, saying so would not necessarily mean that I was prejudiced in any way whatsoever against either Poles or Jews, it would simply be distinguishing the specific immigrant group?

And Anderson did make an effort to point out that he meant race, not religion. So is it not reasonable to suppose that Anderson simply meant that he thought the murderer came from the newly immigrant population, in which case he wasn’t expressing anything even remotely anti-Semitic.

As far as Anderson being predisposed to believe that the Ripper was a Jew, even if true, would it mean he was any the less objective in his assessment of the evidence?

Wholly speculative, of course, but I also wonder how seriously the idea that the Ripper was a low-class Polish Jew was held by Anderson. Whilst the reluctance of low-class Polish Jews to hand one of their own over to the police may have suggested that the Ripper was a low-class Polish Jew, the suggestion may not have been seriously entertained until the low-class Polish Jew suspect was identified. Then it would have been recognised the the police had been barking up the right tree when theyreached that conclusion.
When writing his autobiography Anderson may have wanted to observe that at the time of the murders the police had focused on the area from which it turned out that the murderer did belong.

As explained in my post to the soupmeister, I'm not sure it was or is correct to infer from Anderson’s words that he meant the Jewish population as a whole. I’m likewise doubtful that it is fair to say that Anderson was alone in saying that the Jews would not turn one of their own over to Gentile justice. And Major Smith’s reaction to Anderson’s statement is odd overall and his criticism may possibly be because he had a vested interest in rejecting Anderson’s claim.

It’s questionable whether Anderson would have attended the identification. Perhaps even questionable that Swanson did, so neither may have been citing a first-hand experience. I would suppose, however, that neither man was parroting the opinion of the other, but had seen and assessed the evidence and reach their own conclusion.

Just a few alternative thoughts.
Cheers
Paul

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. B:

You said...

"And Anderson did make an effort to point out that he meant race, not religion."

This line of demarcation, that there is a difference between a religious Jew and a racial Jew....at that time, would seem to refer to the two bodies of East End Jewry extant ....A. Those who practiced Judaism..and B. Anarchist Jews. The sum total of Jews who were neither of these two were probably very few in number.

A third alternative is organized Jewish criminals and those who hung on the fringes of that element...but wouldn't SRA have mentioned that without hesitation?

There's really two ways to go here, isn't there?

1. That SRA meant that the certain individuals who happened to be Jewish and were likely to resist handing the murderer over to Gentile justice were from the Great Unwashed coterie of proletarian,unassimilated,and newly arrived Jewry.

Or...

2. That SRA meant that the certain individuals who happened to be Jewish only in an ethnic ( Ashkenazi ) sense, and were likely to resist handing the murderer over to Gentile justice were from the Rabble Rousing coterie of proletarian anarchists or socialists, and not necessarily newly arrived nor unassimilated...since its undoubtedly true that some members of the anarchist,socialist cadres were assimilated and possibly British born.

If I have limited the potential number of cadres, please make any and all additions as soon as you finish your soup.

Thank you.

[Paul]

Hi Howard,
I don't think religion came into it. The vast majority of recent immigant arrivals were Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe and were accordingly described as Polish Jews. All Anderson was saying was that the Ripper belonged to a class of these East European immigrants. Had these been earlier times and he'd said that the killer was a low-class Huguenot we'd easily accept that he meant one of the recent immigrants who had fled from persecution in France, and we wouldn't draw inferences about the religion of the suspect or that Anderson was anti-Protestant. Unlike the French Protestants who were collectively called Huguenots, the East European immigrants fleeing persecuation in their own country had no such collective name and were referred to simply as Polish Jews. In saying that Jack the Ripper was one of them he was simply saying that Jack the Ripper was one of those who had recently fled persecution in Eastern Europe. That they were Jewish was irrelevant in every sense. As Anderson said, 'it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature...'

[How Brown]

I'd like to know if others have a thing or two to say about the content of what Mr. B. , Magpie and I are discussing here. If you do, why not give your views? Thanks.

Mr. B... I am fully aware of how or what you are trying to say, so please don't think I am trying to be dense. Thats a condition I usually don't have to try too hard to be.

If how one would interpret SRA's famous "not religion, but race" comment means that SRA was not "picking on Jews" for their religion and that he simply and specifically was indicating those who were of the "Jewish race", he was clearly, or at least to me he was, specifying the bulk of Jewry who had fled the pogroms or sought asylum in Britain. Most of whom did practice Judaism.

To me, he is still, by inference, sizing up the majority of Jews who had moved into the East End, which to me,once more, is clearly painting the entire lot with the same brush. He is damning with faint praise. "No, I am not being critical of the religion these people practice...but the individuals who moved into the area who do practice that religion and their attitude to the police".

Its like saying "I love to go swimming, but I don't want to get wet". SRA appears to not have wanted to disparage the religion of the individuals who had moved into the East End, but had no issue with disparaging their ethnicity. With Jews, that was one and the same. A Jew WAS a member, according to the mindset of 1888, a member of both a religion and a race. Inseperable.

I think the reaction by the Head Rabbi to his comments were indicative of the rabbi recognizing that to virtually everyone who read the comments SRA made that he was trying to swim without getting wet.

I also understand that its hard to prove intent in this instance on the part of SRA.

It might be that we have run the gamut of possible interpretations on what he may or may not have meant...and again, I understand how you interpret what SRA might have really meant, Mr. B., I really do.

If anyone else has an interpretation of what SRA may have meant in regard to his statements, please provide them at your leisure.

Back to you Mr. B and Magpie....

[Paul]

Its like saying "I love to go swimming, but I don't want to get wet". SRA appears to not have wanted to disparage the religion of the individuals who had moved into the East End, but had no issue with disparaging their ethnicity. With Jews, that was one and the same. A Jew WAS a member, according to the mindset of 1888, a member of both a religion and a race. Inseperable.

Hi Howard,
Was Anderson disparaging anyone or anything? Anderson was simply saying that Jack the Ripper was one of the recently arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe. 'Polish Jew' was nothing more than a descriptive term for those people.

[Chris G.]

I'd like to know if others have a thing or two to say about the content of what Mr. B. , Magpie and I are discussing here. If you do, why not give your views? Thanks.

Mr. B... I am fully aware of how or what you are trying to say, so please don't think I am trying to be dense. Thats a condition I usually don't have to try too hard to be.

If how one would interpret SRA's famous "not religion, but race" comment means that SRA was not "picking on Jews" for their religion and that he simply and specifically was indicating those who were of the "Jewish race", he was clearly, or at least to me he was, specifying the bulk of Jewry who had fled the pogroms or sought asylum in Britain. Most of whom did practice Judaism.

To me, he is still, by inference, sizing up the majority of Jews who had moved into the East End, which to me,once more, is clearly painting the entire lot with the same brush. He is damning with faint praise. "No, I am not being critical of the religion these people practice...but the individuals who moved into the area who do practice that religion and their attitude to the police".

Its like saying "I love to go swimming, but I don't want to get wet". SRA appears to not have wanted to disparage the religion of the individuals who had moved into the East End, but had no issue with disparaging their ethnicity. With Jews, that was one and the same. A Jew WAS a member, according to the mindset of 1888, a member of both a religion and a race. Inseperable.

I think the reaction by the Head Rabbi to his comments were indicative of the rabbi recognizing that to virtually everyone who read the comments SRA made that he was trying to swim without getting wet.

I also understand that its hard to prove intent in this instance on the part of SRA.

It might be that we have run the gamut of possible interpretations on what he may or may not have meant...and again, I understand how you interpret what SRA might have really meant, Mr. B., I really do.

If anyone else has an interpretation of what SRA may have meant in regard to his statements, please provide them at your leisure.

Back to you Mr. B and Magpie....

Hi Howard and Paul

As you probably know, Sir Robert Anderson was an acquaintance and a correspondent with the acting Chief Rabbi, Dr. Hermann Adler. I believe Stewart Evans, if I am not mistaken, has one of Anderson's letters to Dr. Adler or vice versa.

The "establishment" Jews , i.e., the Jewish families who had been in England for generations, believed the newly arrived Eastern European immigrants were a problem that had to be dealt with, either through settlement in England in good housing or else moved on to other countries. The Rothschild buildings were one answer to the problem, as well as some newly established communities for Jews outside of London, but also the Jewish Board of Guardians did facilitate the passage of immigrant Jews to the United States or elsewhere.

Of course, this might have been partly a self-defense mechanism because they recognized that the newly arrived Jews might cause anti-semitism among the resident British population and even actions against the Jews overall if the closely packed newcomers lived in squalor in the East End, with the crime etc that might ensue in such conditions.

In any case, the Jewish Board of Guardians acted proactively to try to deal with the influx of Jews. It is also quite probable that, as such, British establishment Jews themselves thought of and referred to the Eastern European newcomers as "low class." Thus, I think it might not be quite fair to single out Anderson in this regard as it being his judgement alone that the suspect and his people were "low class" Polish Jews.

Just a caveat to this interesting discussion. Carry on, guys. :)

I intend to discuss this matter of the attitudes of establishment British Jews to the Eastern European immigrants in my upcoming article in Ripperologist on the matter of anti-Semitism in the late Victorian period. Stay tuned.

All the best

Chris

[Dan Norder]

It never ceases to amaze me the hoops people will jump through to try to rationalize a belief.

Let me get this straight... So we can't be concerned that Anderson interpreted evidence incorrectly and wanted to believe it was a Jew despite a lack of evidence to that end if any prejudice Anderson might have had did not exceed the average prejudice at the time? How does this even sound like a reasonable argument?

If we use that same argument in other cases we can immediately see just how ridiculous it is. We needn't, for example, be concerned that individuals who lynched black people might have done so without good reasons unless we can prove that the individuals involved were more racist than the average racist in the area? Currently in Kenya people are killing members of opposing tribes, but obviously we shouldn't be worried that some sort of bias is involved unless we can prove that the person who actually lit the church on fire was more biased than the average member of the mob? And the Inquisition...? Obviously all those witch trials were fair because the religious persecution was just average persecution for the time.

I get the feeling that even if we prove Anderson to be an anti-Semite to a degree that even Paul would have to admit is beyond the pale he'd just raise the bar a little higher and now say we have to prove that he was more anti-Semitic than the average beyond the pale anti-Semite. It's just a ridiculous debating tactic to try to get other people to prove him wrong through outrageously restrictive standards of proof and then to declare himself right if nobody can... pretty much a classic Cornwell "prove me wrong"-type statement.

Paul routinely declares Anderson to be completely competent, completely truthful, and completely beyond any capacity for self-delusion.... that's not even a description of a real human being, let alone what history has shown Anderson was like.

[How Brown]

In any case, the Jewish Board of Guardians acted proactively to try to deal with the influx of Jews. It is also quite probable that, as such, British establishment Jews themselves thought of and referred to the Eastern European newcomers as "low class." Thus, I think it might not be quite fair to single out Anderson in this regard as it being his judgement alone that the suspect and his people were "low class" Polish Jews.

Good points C.G...and so true.

Even among the negro population in America, there was a tendency of Northern negroes to look down on newly arrived Southern negroes back during the migrations in the '20's and '30's. I would wager other ethnic groups have this sort of "provincialism" within their ranks. Good luck with your upcoming discussion !!!

Mr. B:

"Was Anderson disparaging anyone or anything? Anderson was simply saying that Jack the Ripper was one of the recently arrived immigrants from Eastern Europe. 'Polish Jew' was nothing more than a descriptive term for those people..."

Thats true...he wasn't disparaging anyone in particular. One could arguably say he was disparaging a lot of people with the phrasing...which included "low class".

I've run into my own little wall, so to speak, as I think its coming down to where people ( myself ) interpret what SRA said differently and thats "the best we can do". I'll concede I can't prove SRA meant what I think he was inferring....so for now ( Tomorrow's another day:nod:) I'll just leave it at that.

[A.P. Wolf]

From a personal point of view I have to say that I find Anderson's religious tracts deeply disturbing, and that I have always imagined the volatility of such a man being in close proximity to one of his most senior police officers, Cutbush, who sincerely believed that the Catholics were poisoning the water supply of London.
These sort of inherent and diabolical racial and religious beliefs appeared to have infested the higher ranks of Scotland Yard right throughout the LVP; and sad to say are seemingly still around.
I have never struggled with the concept that the senior officers of the day laid the blame on Johnny Foreigner for such crimes.

[Paul]

Howard,
A long post, for which I apologise.

L.P. Hartley famously began his novel The Go-between, ‘The past is another country, they do things differently there.’ To us the term ‘low-class’ is disparaging, but was it disparaging back then?

Today we quite often use the term ‘high-class’ to describe a hotel like the Dorchester and ‘high-class means plush, expensive, luxurious. We see ‘high-class’ applied to shops, areas, people, even services. What we don’t do very much anymore is to use the opposite term, ‘low-class’, to describe a hotel that’s cheap and basic. We’ll use terms like ‘budget’ instead. And by the use of that term we don’t mean to imply anything disparaging about the hotel or the people who stay there. And what’s more, neither the hotel nor its guests would see the term as disparaging either.

Now, was ‘low-class’ used in 1888 with the same acceptability as ‘high-class’ is today? Or are you applying a modern interpretation of the word and seeing it as disparaging? I have shown that the term ‘low-class’ was frequently used in the press of 1888 to describe everything from a person to an area to a coffee-shop. This suggests that ‘low-class’ was a common, accepted and understood descriptive term, not disparaging to the people or things to which it was applied. By the standards of his day the owner of the low-class coffee shop may have acknowledged that his coffee-shop was low class, much as the owner of a budget hotel would acknowledge that his hotel was a budget hotel.

I think I am interpreting the use and meaning of ‘low-class’ correctly. I think you are applying a modern interpretation of the term and reaching an incorrect conclusion. I think I have shown through the examples of the use of ‘low-class’ in newspapers that I am correct. Since neither you nor I are experts in the language and meaning in the late Victorian period we are unable to provide a definitive answer to which of us is right. Perhaps nobody can. We can bat the ball back and forth forever and its good that we do so. What concerns me though - and it doesn’t just concern me about Anderson – is how Anderson is being assessed in the light of our individual interpretation of words and phrases. Indeed, let’s go a step further, that Anderson is being judged because we are not appreciating that ‘low-class’ could even have had a different ‘meaning’ back then.

Likewise, in describing the suspect as a Polish Jew, we home in on the word Jew and give shades and meanings which Anderson may never have intended. He was simply describing recently arrived immigrants who had fled the persecution in their own country for their religious beliefs. Their own country was Poland and their religious belief was Judaism, hence they were Polish Jews. In referring to them as such Anderson meant no more than that they were Polish Jews.

Similarly, Anderson got into trouble because he was misinterpreted as suggesting that the Jewish population as a whole or at least the immigrant Jewish population protected the murderer. But Anderson did not mean that. He did mean that experience had shown that the immigrant population were reluctant to hand one of their own over to the authorities and I’ve shown some slight evidence suggesting that that opinion was not Anderson’s alone, and I’ve also shown that there were very good reasons why the recent immigrants might have wanted to sort out their own problems. So, for right or for wrong, it might have been reasonable to conclude that if the murderer was being shielded then he was probably being shielded by a member of the East European immigrant population. But it is quite clear that Anderson was not suggesting that the whole immigrant population knew the identity of and protected the murderer. As Anderson said, the conclusion reached was that the murderer either lived alone and could get rid of his bloodstains unobserved or he lived with people whose suspicions must have been aroused by the bloodstains and were not conveying their suspicions to the police. Since Anderson is unlikely to have thought that the murderer washed himself in front of an assembled multitude, it is quite obvious that he meant family.

Anderson has stated that his religious writings would show that he held Judaism in high regard and that he counted many Jews among his personal friends (that they were not low-class Jews is irrelevant as he probably never came into contact with any to make friends of). However, if Anderson was lying (and nobody has thus far produced any evidence that he was) and was in reality a class conscious rabid anti-Semite ready and willing to assume the murderer was a Jew and damn the evidence to the contrary, then we’d obviously have to judge his statements in light of that and we’d all probably share the same conclusion. But even if, as has been suggested, he was an anti-Semite of the ‘they’re good people but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one’ variety, then we’d still have to question whether that would have pre-disposed him towards Jews or otherwise caused him to assess the evidence against a Jewish suspect any more or less rigorously than would otherwise have been the case.

In short, what should be careful to assess Anderson (and everyone else) by the lights of their day, by how words and expressions would have been interpreted back then, and not, as so often seems to be the case, through modern eyes and with modern interpretations.

[Paul]

A.P.
I don’t have any problems with the concept that policemen of any rank would have laid the blame on ‘Johnny Foreigner’. What I have a problem with is the assertion that blame was laid on ‘Johnny Foreigner’ – that Anderson was an anti-Semite who would accordingly be at best pre-disposed to accept that a Jew was Jack the Ripper and at worst would falsely accuse a Jew of being Jack the Ripper. Both views have been advanced, neither seems supported by any evidence.

As for Anderson’s religious writings, Martin Fido has said that Anderson expressed opinions that were eccentric, as were some of Anderson’s penological suggestions, but it would be interesting to know precisely what you find disturbing about them and, once again, whether it’s disturbing because you are reading his views and opinions through modern eyes and whether they would they have been disturbing back then?

I’m also fascinated to know when and where Supt. Cutbush expressed the opinion that Catholics were poisoning the water supply of London? Did he believe this in a full state of sanity? And what evidence do you have for your statement that ‘diabolical racial and religious beliefs appeared to have infested the higher ranks of Scotland Yard’?

[Robert Linford]

Hi Paul

We have three or four inquest reports scattered around on Supt Cutbush, and the difficulty is locating them! I haven't found one that mentions the water supply, but here's a link to one mentioning Catholics.


http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4920/9861.html
(March 3rd 2005)

Robert

[Paul]

Thank you, Robert. Much appreciated.

A.P.
As ever you raise some interesting considerations, but it seems that Supt. Cutbush's beliefs about Catholics was a manifestation of his paranoid delusions. What possible bearing does his insanity and his previous working proximity to Anderson have on Anderson's religious beliefs or, indeed, on Anderson at all? And on what evidence do you suggest that Anderson was 'volatile'? I hope your opinion that the higher ranks of Scotland Yard were infested with 'inherent and diabolical racial and religious beliefs' is based on more than mildly eccentric milleniarist writings and paranoid delusions.

[How Brown]

I have never struggled with the concept that the senior officers of the day laid the blame on Johnny Foreigner for such crimes. ---A.P.

Dear A.P....Thank you for joining the thread.

All I can add to your statement in your post is that its likely that the Press may have helped create that impression, especially if not specifically after the brouhaha over Pizer following the Chapman murder. To me, and I certainly may be out of order here, I think that from reading what I have read so far from contemporary newspapers ( You and Robert and Mr. B will be far more aware than I ) that it was after Chapman's murder that people began to jump on the "Its a A Foreigner" bandwagon....and that the Press may have influenced the rank and file East Ender as well as the police with the tone of their editorials and observations. Again, if I am incorrect,please show me otherwise. Thanks.

Dear Mr. B:

I think that you are right in that we can "go round and round" on the content of SRA's words indefinitely and it is good. Its very good. By the way, you couldn't put a post too long on these boards for my liking.

People can, in certain cases, defend or argue against any issue in the WM with equal enthusiasm ....and this specific ( one of several ) aspect in the realm of SRA may well be one of them. Personally and not to engage in another of the aspects in discussing SRA, there are more serious aspects to discuss on this thread in the future....but this one, of whether he was or wasn't being elitist or anti-Jewish ( I don't think he was the latter,but I tend to think he was the former) is a good launching pad for those future discussions.

One can think back to SRA's comment about how the "English" react to events such as the WM and take leave of their senses ( I believe that thats in "The Lighter Side'...). Is SRA, an Irishman, being elitist or provincial in this instance? I'd say yes. Its equivalent to an Englishman saying that the Irish all underreact to events such as the WM. This comment, made in an offhanded way, might well reflect the general attitude of virtually everyone towards "The Other" ( One could also add Larkins' preposterous provincialistic comments towards the Portugese. At that time, Larkins was probably one of millions who considered the Portugese a different "race" and not just another ethnic entity among the greater European peoples ).

In the scheme of things,whats probably most important is whether or not his worldview had anything to do with the way he interprets the Hove identification of the suspect....and whether or not his words on the matter, ones of serious importance, were based on fact....considering that this identification came two years after the Kelly murder. A seasoned police official would know that eyewitness verification or identification of an individual diminishes over time.

If anyone has anything to add to the gist of this aspect of the SRA discussion ( whether or not he was elitist, anti-Jewish, or anything germane to the first part of this thread ) please add on to it.

If not, perhaps we might like to discuss the Hove identification or something someone else has in mind.

Thank you.

[A.P. Wolf]

Well, Paul, I really had Exec. Superintendent Charles Cutbush uppermost in my mind in my last post; and yes the report that he felt Catholics were poisoning the drinking water of London is around... somewhere. I merely have to find it.
It is interesting to note that Anderson did share Cutbush's antipathy towards Catholics as the following quote from his work demonstrates:

'
But "the Catholic Church" knows no Coming save the great day of wrath; and ignoring the living Lord, it appoints sham priests to do on earth what He is doing for us in the presence of God. It thus sets up "the first tabernacle again," which is a denial that the way into the holiest is open (Hebrews 9:8). And this again is a denial of the efficacy of the blood of Christ, and of the redemption He has wrought. This cult of the Crucifix is not merely unchristian but antichristian.
The "Holy Catholic Church" claims to be the oracle of God, and therefore it requires from its votaries an unreasoning acceptance of its dogmas. Protestantism, on the other hand, appeals to Scripture and reason in support of the doctrines for which it claims belief. '

One imagines the pair of 'em embroiled in their rich and fantastic fantasies about the Catholics of England. Anderson the preacher feeding his poison to Cutbush the soldier.

Disturbing especially is Anderson's ravings on blood sacrifice and the like in regard to atonement and salvation; and this would have been just as disturbing - and readable - to young impressionable men of the LVP as now.
The fact that Anderson was honestly waiting for a dead man to be reborn again is perhaps but a reflection of his genuine immaturity in a world that was being driven by steam right past his nose.

One has to question whether such men as this, Cutbush and Anderson, with their strictly - and almost barmy - anti-Catholic stance, would have reacted any differently to people of a Jewish persuasion.
I think not.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks How
my point of view is that it didn't really need a Jack the Ripper in 1888 to sharpen what was already a general resentment against the recently arrived Jewish immigrants, for there was already a great push and shove evident in the East End of London, particularly between the Irish and the new arrivals.
Lampooning the Jew was I think common practise right across society; and I think in particular here of one Jack the Ripper letter which threatened to 'do' for that old Jew in Parliament, promising to slice his buttocks off or something similar.
I'm not prepared to believe that the forces of law and order of the LVP were any different to any other strata or section of society, and an anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish stance was probably the norm, rather than the exception.

[How Brown]

Dear A.P.

I didn't clarify what I meant in my last post and that is, yes,you are correct that a provincialism or racist ( to what degree is irrelevant in this case) mindset emanated from virtually every brow,even those who we are referring to in the status of victim here.

What I meant was that the emphasis of whom to look for may have been influenced by the papers to an already slightly ( naturally, considering the times ) biased constabulary...and their higher ups.

[A.P. Wolf]

Has anyone got access to this article?

British Jews and the Racialisation of Crime in the Age of Empire
Knepper Br J Criminol.2007; 47: 61-79

[Debra Arif]

AP
I have access to the full PDF version of this article if you are still on the lookout for it?

[A.P. Wolf]

Love it, Debs, any chance of popping it over to me?

[Paul]

One imagines the pair of 'em embroiled in their rich and fantastic fantasies about the Catholics of England. Anderson the preacher feeding his poison to Cutbush the soldier.

Thank you for that, A.P. I can see nothing in the extract from Anderson's writings to support your statements about 'rich and fantastic fantasies about the Catholics of England', 'Anderson's ravings on blood sacrifice and the like in regard to atonement and salvation' and Anderson's 'almost barmy - anti-Catholic stance'. I can see nothing barmy therein, no ravings, no rich and fantastic fantasies.

What I'd like to do here is for people to cite in as much detail as possible the evidence they have for making claims such as yours, so elucidation would be appreciated.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul,
Just a couple of other observations regarding Anderson.
Without going to my notes I seem to recall that Warren"s racial awareness ,instantly picked up the danger of allowing even mildly anti Jewish propaganda to remain above the spot the other apron piece was found in Goulston Street.This then was a senior policeman of the highest rank who was fully conscious of racial consequences ! No messing-just a "get rid of it at once" mentality----oh that we had seen some similar sensitivity in action at any point with regards to Anderson.
Instead, we have a man seeming for all the world to be running with the tide of extreme right wing opinion and bigotry.Believing as numbers of his class did that no Englishman could possibly have committed these crimes.Acting as though he believed, without proof, that a democratically elected MP was actually a terrorist,and adding to that "suspicion" by rushing to print libellous material about the man in a quality national newspaper.Racing to the mortuary where Rose Mylett"s body lay in order to challenge not only the jury at her inquest but also the conclusions of his Police Surgeon -in- Chief, as well as another four Police Surgeons---all highly trained in such medical assessment.For this he appears to have "leant on" Dr Bond- his trusted Whitehall police surgeon- to alter his original conclusion that concurred with the other five surgeons as well as the jury and alter it to agree with his own lay conclusion .
Best

Natalie

[Paul]

Hi Paul,
Just a couple of other observations regarding Anderson.
Without going to my notes I seem to recall that Warren"s racial awareness ,instantly picked up the danger of allowing even mildly anti Jewish propaganda to remain above the spot the other apron piece was found in Goulston Street.This then was a senior policeman of the highest rank who was fully conscious of racial consequences ! No messing-just a "get rid of it at once" mentality----oh that we had seen some similar sensitivity in action at any point with regards to Anderson.
Instead, we have a man seeming for all the world to be running with the tide of extreme right wing opinion and bigotry.Believing as numbers of his class did that no Englishman could possibly have committed these crimes.Acting as though he believed, without proof, that a democratically elected MP was actually a terrorist,and adding to that "suspicion" by rushing to print libellous material about the man in a quality national newspaper.Racing to the mortuary where Rose Mylett"s body lay in order to challenge not only the jury at her inquest but also the conclusions of his Police Surgeon -in- Chief, as well as another four Police Surgeons---all highly trained in such medical assessment.For this he appears to have "leant on" Dr Bond- his trusted Whitehall police surgeon- to alter his original conclusion that concurred with the other five surgeons as well as the jury and alter it to agree with his own lay conclusion .
Best
Natalie


Hi Natalie,
Good to hear from you and as ever some challenging observations.

Yes, Warren was concerned that the GSG might incite anti-Jewish feeling, already engendered by the Leather Apron/Pizer episode, and therefore ordered that it be removed.

'oh that we had seen some similar sensitivity in action at any point with regards to Anderson.'

Where in particular do we not see similar sensitivity by Anderson?

'Instead, we have a man seeming for all the world to be running with the tide of extreme right wing opinion and bigotry.Believing as numbers of his class did that no Englishman could possibly have committed these crimes.'

Again I must ask for the evidence of Anderson's bigotry and of Anderson claiming or even implying that no Englishman could have committed the murders?

'Acting as though he believed, without proof, that a democratically elected MP was actually a terrorist,'

I don't know that Anderson lacked 'proof' or, at least, what he and others saw as reasonable suspicion that Parnell was involved with the terrorists. But, Natalie, whilst I do not claim that Anderson was free of underhand intrigue - the IRC man William Joyce claimed that he was old to drop investigations into some attempted bomb outrages because they had been set up by agents provocateur in the employ of Anderson - you write as if Anderson acted alone and independent of the Salisbury administration. He was but one of many public officials and policeme at war with Irish terrorism and otherwise seeking support for The Times allegations against Parnell: Thomas J. Clarke claimed that when he was in prison he was visited by Littlechild and offered his freedom and a job if he testified against Parnell, for example. Anderson was no different to Salisbury, Matthews, Lushington, Warren, Monro, Littlechild and a lot of others who believed that Parnell, democratcally elected or not, was up to his neck in the whole mucky business. Being one of many does not absolve Anderson of playing dirty, but he shouldn't be singled out in this way.

'and adding to that "suspicion" by rushing to print libellous material about the man in a quality national newspaper.'

I ask again for examples of Anderson writing something libellous about Parnell in his 'Behind the Scenes in America' articles. Or, ideed, anywhere else.

Cheers
Paul

[Natalie Severn]

Well ofcourse Paul,my reading of History tells me that the Orange men of 1888 ,of which Anderson was a part, were prepared to use any means necessary to undermine all prospects of Home Rule whether it were to come about by the peaceful road proposed by Parnell and his supporters ie by a process of legitimate Parliamentary Democracy of which Parnell was the main and leading representative or whether it was by "agent provocateur counter terrorism -or both .But you are quite correct in saying that all those others were involved too-Monro,Warren, Littlechild-who spied on Parnell"s affair to discredit him by another route etc
But regarding the means employed to discredit Parnell, it is my understanding that it did include the welcome reception of the forged "Parnell Letters" by Richard Pigott by The Times Newspaper as well as Sir Robert Anderson"s string of articles entitled "Behind The Scenes In America" in which [quote]" he branded Parnell and his party as fellow travellers in terror".--page 35 Fenian Fire.
Winston Churchill as Home Secreatary in 1910 may not have wanted too much attention drawn to Sir Robert"s 1910 "revelations" ie that it was he Sir Robert who had penned the articles . For a start Winston had changed sides and was now a staunch supporter of Home Rule,but as I have said before Winston"s father Randolph had been ever ready to play the Orange card which was probably embarrassing both from a personal point of view and a political one.So as Home Secretary, he swept Sir Robert Anderson"s assersions aside with a derisory agreement that they were just more of "Anderson"s Fairy Stories".However behind the scenes Sir Robert was clearly in trouble since he almost lost his £900 pension -page 37 FF and most certainly would have if he let any more cats out of the bag!
And there was still a debate about Sir Robert and his Articles" in Parliament in 1910 as a result of his own admissions, because naturally the Irish Party had scented revenge-

"the long sought-for proof that Lord Salisbury"s Conservative Government had colluded in 1887-9 in the attempted political destruction of Parnell by The Times.A full scale Inquiry was demanded." page 37 Fenian Fire.

That Anderson clearly had been up to his neck in it and prepared to "use any means necessary" to bring about the downfall of a democratically elected MP and defeat his and the Irish Nationionalist quest for Independence seems clear to me and that he believed he was justified in doing so.
But I agree with you Sir Robert was not alone by any stretch of the imagination in using such "dirty tricks"---- both sides did The British/Unionist and the Irish Nationalist, and all the names you mention wereindeed just as involved.
Best
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Paul
my feelings concerning Anderson's thoughts on blood atonement and sacrificial forgiveness for sins are purely personal, but I do see his ideas in this regard as very provocative, and perhaps even dangerous to confused individuals who might misconstrue what Anderson says... and here I mean individuals like Charles Henry Cutbush who himself obviously suffered from delusions that the 'sham priests' who were practising the 'cult of crucifix' truly represented an 'antichristian' threat to the good Protestant population of England.
We should remind ourselves that what Anderson calls those 'sham priests' practising the 'cult of crucifix' are in fact representatives of the largest religious grouping of individuals on this planet, then and now.
Ii is not for me to provide you with further detail concerning Anderson's 'barmy' attitude towards the Catholic faith, for I have already done so, it is up to you to absorb Anderson's words as you see fit. I cannot influence that.
But for me, Anderson was a radical, whose words and thoughts were designed to inspire and promulgate religious strive and animosity.

[A.P. Wolf]

My thanks to Debs - and Robert - for getting that article over to me so swiftly.
Dr Paul Knepper makes some interesting comment in regard to Anderson and his somewhat reckless attitude to the Jewish immigrant population of the East End of London; and does accuse Anderson of 'enflaming anti-Jewish furore by repeating his belief that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew of Polish background'.
Knepper also quotes Anderson's 'low class Jews' statement; and makes much of Anderson's argument - made later - that the Home Office were culpable in the misadministration of the Aliens Act allowing 'Houndsditch-type criminals' to operate. Anderson of course meant 'Jews'.

One problem here - obvious after reading Knepper's article - is that we make the distinction today between what was termed an 'Alien' and a 'Jew', but in the LVP they were the one and same thing... an alien was a Jew, and a Jew was an alien.
When Arnold White set up his 'Society for the Suppression of Destitute Aliens' in 1886 it was aimed specifically at the newly arrived Jewish immigrant population of the East End.
So as we can see this institutionalised racism was well entrenched two years before the Whitechapel Murders, and Anderson's comments must, I feel, be classified as incitement and encouragement to such racial stereotyping... just as his comments concerning the Catholic faith.

[Paul]

Ii is not for me to provide you with further detail concerning Anderson's 'barmy' attitude towards the Catholic faith, for I have already done so, it is up to you to absorb Anderson's words as you see fit. I cannot influence that.

With respect, A.P., you have cited Anderson once and the quote is, as far as I know, a straightforward, albeit overly complicated, piece of theology argument distinguishing Catholic and Protestant beliefs. There is nothing barmy in it, or if there is it is escaping me and I would appreciate clarification.

[Paul]

My thanks to Debs - and Robert - for getting that article over to me so swiftly.

If either one could let me have a copy of the article too, I would appreciate it and be better able to coment.

[Robert Linford]

Paul, if you'd like to PM your email address to me I'll send you the item - I don't think I can send you an attachment via PM.

Robert

[A.P. Wolf]

Well, Paul, it comes down to how you feed the beast, for the beast needs feeding. I see Anderson as the 'respectable' scholar who is producing the biblical wherewithall to fuel Superintendent Cutbush's madness in regard to the Catholic population of England. Any doubts that may have surfaced in Cutbush's mind concerning his 'barmy' attitude towards Catholics would have been smoothed and fulfilled by Anderson's 'acceptable' and 'respectable' writings and thoughts on the subject, for the Catholic Church employed 'sham priests' who were inherently and diabolically 'antichristian'.
Cutbush and Anderson both saw the Catholic Church as the enemy of true faith; and I would hazard a guess that Cutbush's antipathy against Catholics was probably generated by the writings and thoughts of his superior officer, Anderson.
They make a nice couple.

I've actually read quite a degree of Anderson's work; and as said I find it personally disturbing. Much of it would generate the type of comfort zone that a killer of fellow humans would employ and enjoy to rationalise his crimes.

[Paul]

Well, Paul, it comes down to how you feed the beast, for the beast needs feeding. I see Anderson as the 'respectable' scholar who is producing the biblical wherewithall to fuel Superintendent Cutbush's madness in regard to the Catholic population of England. Any doubts that may have surfaced in Cutbush's mind concerning his 'barmy' attitude towards Catholics would have been smoothed and fulfilled by Anderson's 'acceptable' and 'respectable' writings and thoughts on the subject, for the Catholic Church employed 'sham priests' who were inherently and diabolically 'antichristian'.
Cutbush and Anderson both saw the Catholic Church as the enemy of true faith; and I would hazard a guess that Cutbush's antipathy against Catholics was probably generated by the writings and thoughts of his superior officer, Anderson.
They make a nice couple.

I've actually read quite a degree of Anderson's work; and as said I find it personally disturbing. Much of it would generate the type of comfort zone that a killer of fellow humans would employ and enjoy to rationalise his crimes.


Hi A.P.
That's fine; so if I've got this right, your portrait of Anderson is based on your interpretation of Anderson's theological writing, your assumption based on no eidence that Anderson and Cutbush discussed Catholicism, and your assumption that Anderson was content to accept as serious (and not as a manifestation of mental illness) Cutbush's extreme views about being persecuted by Catholics. Well, I can't say you're wrong, but personally I'd like to see a little support for all that.

Cheers
Paul

[A.P. Wolf]

'personally I'd like to see a little support for all that'.

Best thing, Paul, is I send you a truss then.

[Paul]

'personally I'd like to see a little support for all that'.

Best thing, Paul, is I send you a truss then.

:-) Just some evidence will do.

Thanks to Robert I now have the article cited earlier and will read it again at greater leisure. Unfortunately, the claim that Anderson ‘enflamed anti-Jewish furore by repeating his belief that ‘Jack’ was a Jew of Polish background’ is quoted from a book, The Jews Body by the distinguished academic Sander L Gillman and published way back in 1991, and no evidence is given by Dr Knepper in support of it. Apart from Mentor’s articles in the Jewish Chronicle and Major Smith’s observations in his autobiography, I don’t recall any reaction to Anderson’s revelations and nothing at all that can fairly be described as enflaming ‘anti-Jewish furore’.

The second reference to Anderson paraphrases an observation Anderson made regarding the Aliens Act and the Houndsditch Murders in an article called ‘The Problem of the Alien Criminal’ (The Nineteenth Century 69:217-224,1911) and links it to a similar observation made by Arnold White of the Anti-immigrant League and a clear anti-Semite. Without seeing Anderson’s article, which could be quite revelatory in itself, it’s impossible to say whether his observation was anti-Semtic or whether this was implied by Dr Knepper's combination of it with White’s.

[A.P. Wolf]

Paul you best take that up with Dr Knepper then.
I'm sure he will glad to hear that you believe him to be a unresearched copyist who has misunderstood his own spurious argument based on unproven facts.
Guaranteed to warm the heart of any academic who has spent his lifetime researching and writing about the LVP.
You got some nerve, son.

[Paul]

Paul you best take that up with Dr Knepper then.
I'm sure he will glad to hear that you believe him to be a unresearched copyist who has misunderstood his own spurious argument based on unproven facts.
Guaranteed to warm the heart of any academic who has spent his lifetime researching and writing about the LVP.
You got some nerve, son.

A.P.,
I don't know what you are reading, A.P., but it certainly isn't anything I wrote. I didn't say any of those things.

Maybe a trip to SpecSavers or somwhere would help you see those little quotation marks and the little numbers directing you to the source Dr Knepper cited.

[A.P. Wolf]

Paul, it seems to me that there is an overwhelming source of material - written by Anderson himself - that shows his distinct antipathy towards the Catholic faith, it's priests, doctrine and members of that church... but you appear to deny that obvious fact.
It also appears to me that you are both unwilling and unable to absorb or accept the idea that comments made by Anderson about Jews and crime were insensitive, ill-timed and bound to stir up racial tension.
I think it is entirely up to you to explain your attitude in this regard, as my stance is plain, and that is that Anderson's religious beliefs and persuasions were bound to bring him into conflict with groups who did not share those beliefs and persuasions.
Like Catholics and Jews.

[How Brown]

I think Mr. B's efforts in providing an explanation contrary to the general feeling many of us....not all by any means.... have about whether SRA was definitely an anti-this or anti-that are pretty reasonable....despite the fact that I for one...not that it matters what I think... still feel there is a tinge of classism in his original statement of "low class Polish Jew" and subsequent apologia. I think its incumbent on those of us, like myself, to prove that SRA and others in positions of authority were so myopic that they immediately focused on the proletarian sector of Jewry. I don't think we can, based on one comment made 20 some years after the WM.

I for one think that it might be wise to shift gears here and if its acceptable with everyone else, lets focus on the comments made by SRA which are contrary to his later declarations that the Ripper had been identified.

What say ye, A.P., Mr. B...and the rest?

[A.P. Wolf]

Agreed, How, but before I do that I think it vital to remember that there is precedent for Anderson's 'Polish Jew', and the habit of the higher echelon of the Metropolitan police to drag out this bogeyman whenever an investigation into a serious crime was foundering, such as in the bomb scare of 1883 and the Dynamite Outrages of 1885.
So Anderson was resorting to a familiar tactic in an attempt to qualify his obvious incompetence, and that familiar tactic of whipping the Jew was long part of the British Establishment. It is no accident that it was exactly at this time that anti-Jewish sentiment flourished in Anderson's home town with Jews being openly beaten on the streets of Ireland.
Now, I wonder why that was?

[Paul]

Paul, it seems to me that there is an overwhelming source of material - written by Anderson himself - that shows his distinct antipathy towards the Catholic faith, it's priests, doctrine and members of that church... but you appear to deny that obvious fact.
It also appears to me that you are both unwilling and unable to absorb or accept the idea that comments made by Anderson about Jews and crime were insensitive, ill-timed and bound to stir up racial tension.
I think it is entirely up to you to explain your attitude in this regard, as my stance is plain, and that is that Anderson's religious beliefs and persuasions were bound to bring him into conflict with groups who did not share those beliefs and persuasions.Like Catholics and Jews.

Hi A.P.,
Up to me to explain my attitude? Well, let's see. You have been claiming that Anderson had ''rich and fantastic fantasies about the Catholics of England', you've accused him of 'ravings on blood sacrifice...', spoken of his 'almost barmy - anti-Catholic stance', and you have portrayed him as feeding Cutbush's paranoid delusions. I have asked for evidence to support these assertions and so far I have received from you one anti-Catholic extract from Anderson's writings which appears to me to be far from original and rather innocuous. Now, I hope you’ll agree that what you have been claiming is a lot different from saying that Anderson had no sympathy for the Catholic Church. Similarly, Anderson’s comments about Jews may have been ‘insensitive, ill-timed and bound to stir up racial tension’ but that, even if true, doesn’t mean he was anti-Semitic. And whilst Anderson’s ‘religious beliefs and persuasions were bound to bring him into conflict with groups who did not share those beliefs and persuasions’, that such conflict over theology made him more inclined to think a Catholic or a Jew likely to have been Jack the Ripper has yet to be demonstrated.

'I think it vital to remember that there is precedent for Anderson's 'Polish Jew', and the habit of the higher echelon of the Metropolitan police to drag out this bogeyman whenever an investigation into a serious crime was foundering, such as in the bomb scare of 1883 and the Dynamite Outrages of 1885.'

Fine, but please let’s see the evidence for this assertion. And the evidence that Anderson was incompetent. And the evidence for supposing that a series of crimes, almost all committed before he parked his bum on the Assistant Commissioner’s chair would have caused him sufficient concern to concoct or otherwise pervert the case against the Polish Jew.

Finally, I am not really asserting very much here. I am simly seeking forproof of your assertion and those made by others.

Cheers
Paul







.

[A.P. Wolf]

Paul, the mere fact that the Jewish Chronicle in March of 1910 labelled Anderson's claim that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Polish Jew as:
'Wholly gratuitous', 'wicked assertions' of a 'nonsensical' nature, should sort of point your nose in the right direction... in other words they were accusing him of being a 'Jew baiter'.
And he was.
And in good company.
His old mate, Stead, was able to report in the Pall Mall Gazette of October 1887 that 'the Polish Jew remains, and for him and his characteristics, there is not much to be said that is laudatory'.
It is a disease that has infested Scotland Yard for many a long year, and as we have seen very recently it is still very much in vogue.
The Polish Jew theory, for by gawd an Englander could not have done such a thing, could they my dear fellow?

[Paul]

Paul, the mere fact that the Jewish Chronicle in March of 1910 labelled Anderson's claim that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Polish Jew as:
'Wholly gratuitous', 'wicked assertions' of a 'nonsensical' nature, should sort of point your nose in the right direction... in other words they were accusing him of being a 'Jew baiter'.
And he was.
And in good company.
His old mate, Stead, was able to report in the Pall Mall Gazette of October 1887 that 'the Polish Jew remains, and for him and his characteristics, there is not much to be said that is laudatory'.
It is a disease that has infested Scotland Yard for many a long year, and as we have seen very recently it is still very much in vogue.
The Polish Jew theory, for by gawd an Englander could not have done such a thing, could they my dear fellow?

A.P.
Mentor did not call Anderson a 'Jew baiter' nor did he suggest that Anderson was a 'Jew baiter'. The nearest he came to saying anything of the sort was a wish that Anderson had not revealed his suspicion that the Ripper was a Jew. And the words you quote are taken out of context. For example, he said that it was a 'wicked assertion' to say without presenting 'the shadow of evidence' that Jews 'knew the person who was committing the abominable crimes and yet carefully shielded him from the police'. This is different from saying, as you say he said, that claiming Jack the Ripper was a Jew was a wicked assertion'. Indeed Mentor subsequently wrote, 'I did not so much object to his saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew...(but) that Jews who knew that "Jack the Ripper" had done his foul deeds, shielded him from the police, and guarded him so that he could continue his horrible career, just because he was a Jew.'

You will hopefully note the words ''I did not so much object to his saying that Jack the Ripper was a Jew...'

This continued to be Mentor's criticism of Anderson even though Anderson himself had acknowledged the merit of Mentor's words, explaining: 'I recognise that in this matter I said either too much or too little. But the fact is that as my words were merely a repetition of what I published several years ago without exciting comment, they flowed from my pen without any consideration.'

Mentor's primary criticism (and one actually based on a misunderstanding of what Anderson had actually said - he thought Anderson said the police formed a theory that the Ripper was a Jew and that following up the theory led them to the suspect, whereas Anderson said only that the police had formed a theory which in the event proved to be true) was that Anderson had ventured to make public a theory and offered no proof in support of it. One can be agree with Mentor, although it is arguable that Anderson, as head of the C.I.D. and one who was likely to be in possession of the facts, may not have felt the need to provide evidential support of what he knew to be true. In [I]The Globe Anderson stated “When I stated that the murderer was a Jew, I was stating a simple matter of fact. It is not a matter of theory."

[Natalie Severn]

Paul ,
After inserting himself in a very "hands on"and rather undignified manner,at night with his own Dr Bond in tow ,at the mortuary where Rose Mylett"s body lay, Anderson went on to challenge the conclusion of at least 5 experts regarding Rose Mylett"s post mortem results.
Amongst those whose medical expertise he challenged was the Police Surgeon -in -chief,Dr Alexander O.MacKellar as well as four other police medical experts/surgeons.
They all stuck to their guns and profoundly disagreed with him believing she had been murdered-except Dr Bond who prevaricated and later agreed with SRA that Rose Mylett had "died" accidently ,from natural causes,in December 1888.
How come then that in his autobiography,"The Lighter Side of my Official Life" in 1910 he stated in a footnote-page 137,"And the Poplar case of December 1888,was a death from natural causes,and but for the "Jack the Ripper" scare,noone would have thought of suggesting it was a homicide"! hmmmn!!!:jaw:

[Paul]

Hi Natalie,

After inserting himself in a very "hands on"and rather undignified manner,at night with his own Dr Bond in tow ,at the mortuary where Rose Mylett"s body lay...

I think you will find that Commissioner James Monro told Anderson to make further inquiries and that Monro was also responsible for asking Dr Bond to examine Mylett’s body, which Bond did five daysafter the murder.

Anderson went on to challenge the conclusion of at least 5 experts regarding Rose Mylett"s post mortem results.

Well, sort of. The impression of Sergeant Robert Golding and other policeman at th scene was that Mylett had died from natural causes and Dr. Harris, the first doctor to examine the body, which he did briefly to certify that death had taken place, thought the same. The police therefore concluded that there was nothing for them to investigate. However, Dr Brownfiled performed an autopsy on the morning of the inquest and concluded that Mylett had been strangled, but he did not inform the police so it came as a bit of a shock to the police when he revealed his opinion at the inquest. Monro would in due course report: “The absence of all signs of violence when the body was discovered & examined by the police and the assistant to the Divisional Surgeon — the fact that there were absolutely no signs of any struggle — The perfectly placid state of the features — The circumstance of a handkerchief having been found loosely folded round the neck of the corpse — all these circumstances, I am bound to say, made me rather hesitate to accept, without further confirmation the statement of the Divisional Surgeon as conclusive with reference to the cause of death. My experience in cases of strangulation led me to believe that the features of a woman so murdered would be swollen, livid, & discoloured, probably protruding — That the eyes would be staring — and that there would have been the livid marks of the cord on the neck, accompanied probably with abrasion of the skin.”

So you will see that Anderson was not alone in questioning Brownfield or in believing that death was from natural causes, and it is also clear that the reasons for questioning the opinion of Dr Brownfield were excellent. Although Monro would conceded that it was a case of murder – and one gets the impression that it was a very reluctant concession - it is evident that Anderson did not, which can be seen, if you wish, as Anderson clinging obstinately to his own opinion in the teeth of the evidence.This might have a bearing on his conclusion that Jack the Ripper was a Polish Jew, suggesting, perhaps, that Anderson would likewise have clung to that conclusion in the face of convincing contrary evidence. Which does not mean, of course, that there wasn;t a suspect, a witness, and a positive identification. And there is also Swanson's tacit agreement with Anderson and perhaps the possibility that Anderson was parroting Swanson's own conclusion about the certainty of the identification.

[A.P. Wolf]

'They flowed from my pen without any consideration'.

Are you seriously trying to tell me, Paul, that the most senior police official of the day was wholly and completely unaware that his comment of the Whitechapel Murderer being a Polish Jew was not going to scratch at the open wound of racism in the East End of London?

For on the one hand we have the most senior police officials of the time showing a massive degree of caution when it came to dealing with the Jewish issue, going to great pains to ensure that nothing should disturb an already disturbing situation... then we have Anderson, perhaps the most aware of all the senior police officials of his day, of religious etiquette and form - he did after all publish more than ten volumes on the very subject - gaily slinging gasolinas on the fire?

I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

[Paul]

Are you seriously trying to tell me, Paul, that the most senior police official of the day was wholly and completely unaware that his comment of the Whitechapel Murderer being a Polish Jew was not going to scratch at the open wound of racism in the East End of London?

I am not trying to tell you anything, A.P. I am simply saying that Anderson accepted as justified a criticism by Mentor but in mitigation stated that he had written the same thing some years earlier without arousing any reaction and had given no thought to the possibility that its repetition would be received differently. If you want to argue that Anderson was lying and that his real intention was to whip up anti-Semitism then it’s up to you to provide support.

[Paul]

Howard,
Apropos your feelings that an elitism was inherent in the term ‘low-class’, A.P.’s references to Mentor’s articles reminded me that Mentor himself doesn’t appear to have perceived anything of that sort in Anderson’s description. Indeed, at one point he uses it himself:- ‘Here was a whole neighbourhood, largely composed of Jews, in constant terror lest their womenfolk, whom Jewish men hold in particular regard - even "low-class" Jews do that - should be slain by some murderer who was stalking the district undiscovered.’

[A.P. Wolf]

Paul, I reckon you and me could beat this bush till hell freezes over, and still nothing will come out of it, for we seem to represent a position of conflict in this regard that appears to be without useful end.
My final thought would be a discussion of the Rubenstein murder case from New York in 1875 where clear prejudice against the Polish Jew, Rubenstein, from the establishment, police and press almost thwarted the efforts of justice, resulting in headlines like 'Israelites - Their Hands are Against Everyman. The Worst Pill in the Box is Rubenstein'.
It was the prosecution strategy to villify Rubenstein as a 'Jew' rather than a murderer, and the whole thing nearly blew up in their face.
I see Anderson's comments about his 'Polish Jew' to be just as volatile and crass as in the Rubenstein case. For he was adopting exactly the same tactic as the defence in the Rubenstein case and villifying the Jew rather than the murderer.
After all there was no good reason for him to state anything else accept that the murderer was known to Scotland Yard.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi All,

I can imagine a black immigrant to the UK in the 1950s, building up a picture in his mind of a justice system that is deeply prejudiced against black immigrants. When his son starts coming home at all hours, occasionally with unexplained blood on his clothes, and the news is full of the latest in a series of knife attacks, he cannot believe his own flesh and blood could be involved, and he has no proof that he is. He also firmly believes that once the police get wind of it, his son is as good as convicted, with or without supporting evidence, guilty or not.

Similarly, I can imagine a “low class” Polish Jew, arriving in the East End in the 1880s, equally worried about the behaviour of a family member, but equally uncertain that he has any connection with the ripper murders and equally convinced that there will be no chance of a fair hearing if they co-operate with the authorities.

Would Anderson have understood why a recent immigrant might have been more reluctant than most to invite investigation? Or would he have seen it in black and white as many still do today: only the guilty, or someone protecting the guilty, would fear authority?

I do wonder how sure Anderson was that the person(s) supposedly living with the ripper could not have been ignorant of the fact, or at least in some doubt. There is a world of difference between a relative whose movements are giving some cause for concern, and one who arrives home shortly after each body is discovered, with another organ in his pocket and a bloody knife that needs sharpening.

The distinction between a concerned relative’s suspicion and certain knowledge is rather crucial when interpreting Anderson’s words. He could have thought it only natural for recent immigrants not to volunteer mere suspicions to Mr Plod for fear of innocent family members being stitched up by an unfriendly legal system. But then again, if he genuinely believed the ripper’s people must have known they were giving houseroom to a highly dangerous man and denying the fact to the police, such behaviour would have put them right off the scale of your average wary foreigner protecting their own from potential injustice.

So I can’t escape the feeling that Anderson was taking the suspicion of authority in general, on the part of low class Polish Jews in the East End, as a clear indication that such people would go to the extreme lengths of protecting even a deranged murderer in the family from the law of the land. If that was the case, I wonder if he thought the same about low class Irish immigrants.

Love,

Caz
X

[A.P. Wolf]

Nicely done, Caz, personally I feel that it is a qualification of the average LVP academic to believe that his 'type' or 'race' is a superior one, and that all other 'types' are inferior, and will react much like herd animals, attempting to protect their own regardless of the circumstances.
I honestly feel that such LVP academics refused to acknowledge that Jews and other 'types' had normal family lives, and emotions, instead ascribing to them just the sort of base motive that Anderson does. 'Protecting their own' etc.
It seems obvious to me that the Polish Jews of London were no different to any other 'type' in that they could and would express the type of emotion that is common to all humanity; and that emotion would have included the very real desire not to see people murdered simply because there was a suggestion of religious bonding.
I mean how many Jewish witness came forth in the enquiry to help the police?
Legions of them.

[How Brown]

Well put Caz...very well put.

I hear you, Mr. B..

One thing that SRA hasn't been called on the carpet for yet on this thread is that he had no intention of ever revealing the name of the individual whom was identified at Hove...but just "had" to mention his ethnicity.

[How Brown]

‘Here was a whole neighbourhood, largely composed of Jews, in constant terror lest their womenfolk, whom Jewish men hold in particular regard - even "low-class" Jews do that - should be slain by some murderer who was stalking the district undiscovered.’--Mentor ( as posted by by Mr. B )

Mentor also claimed that murders such as the WM were contrary to Jewish nature or some sort of thing. Thats irrelevant, since murders of that sort are contrary to any sane man's nature. That Jews hold their women in any higher regard than the average Gentile is absurd and provincial.

[A.P. Wolf]

Quite right, How, Anderson was not talking murder in his writings. He was having a pop at the Jews. Just like he popped at the Catholics.
In the final analysis it did not matter what race or religion the killer came from, for he was purely an individual, representative of none but himself; and Anderson's comments are now't but ego and sop to try and portray himself in better light... meanwhile the chap sat on his left had a nephew who was running around Whitechapel stabbing women with a six inch blade.
It beggars belief really.

[Paul]

Mentor also claimed that murders such as the WM were contrary to Jewish nature or some sort of thing. Thats irrelevant, since murders of that sort are contrary to any sane man's nature. That Jews hold their women in any higher regard than the average Gentile is absurd and provincial.

As is maybe, How, but it's what Mentor said and what he presumably believed.

[Paul]

Quite right, How, Anderson was not talking murder in his writings. He was having a pop at the Jews. Just like he popped at the Catholics.
In the final analysis it did not matter what race or religion the killer came from, for he was purely an individual, representative of none but himself; and Anderson's comments are now't but ego and sop to try and portray himself in better light... meanwhile the chap sat on his left had a nephew who was running around Whitechapel stabbing women with a six inch blade.
It beggars belief really.

Evidence, A.P. Where's your evidence for any of that?

[Natalie Severn]

Well actually I think Mentor has a point.The Jewish faith is quite matriarchal in certain respects.Jewishness is passed on through the mother, not the father which gives great importance to the female sex.


....and surely Anderson DID know that Charles Cutbush had a nephew who was a knife wielding woman stabber----but we dont hear of him insinuating that the mother of his superintendent"s nephew was a "single parent cockney shielding her son from justice" !

Cheers
Nats

[A.P. Wolf]

As I said, Paul, anything is better than saying it was a Jew that did it.
Anderson pursued the same route as many other senior police officials of the time: to explain the unexplainable with the explainable.
Of course you will be aware that when other suspects were taken into custody in connection with the Whitechapel Murders, that unless they were Jews, their religious persuasion or ethnic origin was not discussed by the police or press. Do you remember an Irish suspect? Or a Catholic suspect?
Even a Japanese suspect was not classified as a Buddhist, but merely Japanese. Do you know if Druitt was a Jew?
Of course he wasn't, or he would have been reported as the Jew Druitt.
Was Thomas Cutbush a Protestant, Catholic or a Jew?
We don't know the answer to that from any of the police or press sources available to us, which sort of gives us the answer, doesn't it, my dear academic?
Only Jews as a religious grouping are isolated and picked out by the senior officers of the Metropolitan Police force when discussing individual suspects, none other.
As uncomfortable as it may be this shows clear prejudice.

[Paul]

As I said, Paul, anything is better than saying it was a Jew that did it.
Anderson pursued the same route as many other senior police officials of the time: to explain the unexplainable with the explainable.
Of course you will be aware that when other suspects were taken into custody in connection with the Whitechapel Murders, that unless they were Jews, their religious persuasion or ethnic origin was not discussed by the police or press. Do you remember an Irish suspect? Or a Catholic suspect?
Even a Japanese suspect was not classified as a Buddhist, but merely Japanese. Do you know if Druitt was a Jew?
Of course he wasn't, or he would have been reported as the Jew Druitt.
Was Thomas Cutbush a Protestant, Catholic or a Jew?
We don't know the answer to that from any of the police or press sources available to us, which sort of gives us the answer, doesn't it, my dear academic?
Only Jews as a religious grouping are isolated and picked out by the senior officers of the Metropolitan Police force when discussing individual suspects, none other.
As uncomfortable as it may be this shows clear prejudice.

Your assumption is that the religion was relevant rather than just part of a general descriptive term for one of the thousands of immigants from Eastern Europe who had flooded the East End during the 1880s - that they were Polish Jews.

[Paul]

So I can’t escape the feeling that Anderson was taking the suspicion of authority in general, on the part of low class Polish Jews in the East End, as a clear indication that such people would go to the extreme lengths of protecting even a deranged murderer in the family from the law of the land. If that was the case, I wonder if he thought the same about low class Irish immigrants.

Hi Caz,
Why wouldn't Anderson have thought the same about low-class Irish immigants if they had shown a marked reluctance to hand one of their own over to the authorities?

Whatever the reasns low-class Polish Jews may have had for not surrendering one of their own to the authorities (and distrust in one of several reasons), it was a distinguishing factor that led to the belief that the murderer, if being protected, was probably a Polish Jew. There is no reason to colour Anderson's words more richly than that.

[Paul]

....and surely Anderson DID know that Charles Cutbush had a nephew who was a knife wielding woman stabber----but we dont hear of him insinuating that the mother of his superintendent"s nephew was a "single parent cockney shielding her son from justice"

Sorry, Natalie, but I'm not sure of your point here, but there was no occasion for him to have said that and we cannot presume that he wouldn’t have said it if there had been an occasion and if it had been a distinguishing factor or otherwise relevant.

[Natalie Severn]

Failed posting---something going wrong here!

[Natalie Severn]

Posting system not working!

[Caroline Morris]

Well actually I think Mentor has a point.The Jewish faith is quite matriarchal in certain respects.Jewishness is passed on through the mother, not the father which gives great importance to the female sex.

....and surely Anderson DID know that Charles Cutbush had a nephew who was a knife wielding woman stabber----but we dont hear of him insinuating that the mother of his superintendent"s nephew was a "single parent cockney shielding her son from justice" !

Cheers
Nats

Hi Nats,

Slightly dodgy ground, though, for anyone to suggest that non-Jews didn't respect their women as much as Jews did. On a par with suggesting that Polish Jews were worse than the Irish when it came to assisting the police?

But maybe such questions are irrelevant anyway if the ripper had his own code of conduct way outside any boundaries set by whichever ‘group’ produced him.



Hi Caz,
Why wouldn't Anderson have thought the same about low-class Irish immigants if they had shown a marked reluctance to hand one of their own over to the authorities?

Whatever the reasns low-class Polish Jews may have had for not surrendering one of their own to the authorities (and distrust in one of several reasons), it was a distinguishing factor that led to the belief that the murderer, if being protected, was probably a Polish Jew. There is no reason to colour Anderson's words more richly than that.

Oh I agree Paul, that going by what Anderson said, we are entitled to infer that he would have thought exactly the same about the Irish - if only he had been aware of occasions when they would have been similarly reluctant to grass up dodgy family members to the English authorities.

Leaving aside how he was able to determine that this feature was either absent from any other group in the East End, or a markedly rarer occurrence, he would still not have been comparing like with like. How many examples did Anderson have of known violent offenders being flushed out of the family cellar of low class Polish Jews by the frustrated forces of law and order? How many would allow for the conclusion that the ripper was probably yet another example?

If the reality was more along the lines of an evident mistrust of coppers and the courts, by a large proportion of the local population - of which a large number also happened to be foreign Jews - it was hardly an indication that a Polish Jew was significantly more likely than an Irishman or a Cockney or anyone else in the area to be willing and able to give shelter to a deranged mutilator of women. It was waffle, not evidence. With evidence against a specific individual, Anderson didn’t need the waffle - didn’t even need to think the waffle through.

Come to think of it, wherever you look there’s waffle where evidence is supposed to have existed: one sod had a hatred of women, a penchant for young men and disappeared soon after the ‘last’ murder. So what? Another swine was sexually insane and drowned himself after the ‘last’ murder. And? Yet another dirty git was always knocking one out, had unspecified homicidal ‘tendencies’ and ended his days in an asylum. Well?

It’s all waffle. Where is the moment in history when each of these characters did or said something specific which led them to become serious murder suspects? What was that something? Why the need for subjective definitions of what made a man a likely ripper, when the actual circumstances that put each suspect in the frame for one or more of the murders, and the evidence that kept them there, must have been known?

It’s even more telling when the waffle is in musings never intended for public consumption. If you had seen a photo of Dr Killmore, bending over Kate with a bloody knife, about to whip out a kidney, you would not carry on musing about the fact that a Dr K, who was among the suspects, had a rotten bedside manner and went as mad as a hatter. Just an arrest on suspicion of threatening a Whitechapel unfortunate with a knife during the Autumn of 1888 would have been a hundred times more interesting to relate than all the waffle about behaviour traits and mental states.

What did Anderson think of Macnaghten’s private information, which suggested that Druitt’s family believed him to have been the murderer? Did they do the ‘right’ thing and go straight to the police with their suspicions, either to prevent further murders if Monty had not yet taken his early bath, or to allow the police to reassure the public, close the case and stop wasting their precious resources?

Why were the Druitts any better in Anderson’s eyes, if they were as reluctant as any low class foreign Jew to inform the police about their posh English relative? It makes no difference how certain Anderson was that the Polish Jew was the ripper, and not Monty. Both families were protecting their own if both believed they knew who the ripper was, or had been. That alone should have neutralised the ‘distinguishing factor’ argument.

Love,

Caz
X

[A.P. Wolf]

Roasting stuff there, Caz, a masterpiece.
Since this debate started I have been looking though the police and court reports of the period where Polish Jews have been involved, to see if there is a trend to support Anderson's statement that Polish Jews were loath to cooperate with the police, or wouldn't give up their own to the police.
Not a jot of it, on the contrary there are numerous criminal cases where Polish Jews have without hesitation gone straight to the police or courts to obtain justice against family or friends who have committed an injustice against them or others. One poor sod even went to court to see if he could get his nagging mother-in-law removed from his Whitechapel home.
Yes, the vast majority are of course less serious offences than murder but there is the Birkelvitch murder case of 1903 where it was upon the direct evidence of fellow Polish Jews that Nathan Obstbaum found himself in court on a charge of murder.
So as you say, a load of old waffle.

[Robert Linford]

AP, I think the mother-in-law thing doesn't count!

[A.P. Wolf]

I see what you mean, Robert, court orders to remove mother-in-laws should be issued like parking permits.
But it does demonstrate that despite family linkage and influence a Polish Jew was just as willing as the next man to go to court to get the object removed from his household. This particular Polish Jew got the sympathy of the court but was told to sort 'er out 'imself.

Interestingly enough in the Samuel Harrison murder - which I just posted up on another thread - much was made by the jury of the refusal of the Polish-Jewish neighbours to allow the dying woman into their homes, and the jury actually asked for a 'rider' to be issued in the case concerning what they viewed as the appalling and inhuman behaviour shown by the neighbours to a woman dying from 17 knife wounds.
Good newspaper copy that.
However the judge was wiser than they, and upon investigation it transpired that the neighbours thought the poor woman was dead, and their religious belief dictated that she could not be brought into their homes. The judge, sensitive to such religious observation ordered the 'rider' to be struck off the court record.

Shame that Anderson did not show the same good common sense and religious sensitivity... but I guess he just wanted good newspaper copy.

[Natalie Severn]

Sorry, Natalie, but I'm not sure of your point here, but there was no occasion for him to have said that and we cannot presume that he wouldn’t have said it if there had been an occasion and if it had been a distinguishing factor or otherwise relevant.

Hi Paul,
I dont know quite what went wrong above but I am going to try again:

Yes,it was getting late when I posted that bit about Cutbush .
My thoughts were running along the lines of why Anderson added these particular adjectives of "Jew","Polish" and "low Class" to a description of a suspect.I was thinking-what if he was describing Thomas Cutbush whose mother was a single parent-would he have informed everyone that Thomas Cutbush was from a single parent family and paranoia ran in the family with both Uncle and nephew imagining people were out to poison them etc......
And actually,talking of Thomas Cutbush, it does appear an extraordinary omission that Anderson appears to have made no mention of the Newspaper coverage given to Thomas Cutbush as suspected Ripper by "The Sun" in 1894.We know that Macnaghten gave the whole affair a thorough coat of whitewash, in his famous memorandum of the same year,but Cutbush was actually arrested for dangerous and violent behaviour,wielding his fearsome knife on unsuspecting young women on the streets of London,and he was sent to an institution for the criminally insane,whereas Kosminski, by contrast had no record of violence at all, and spent his days in an ordinary asylum for those suffering psychotic disorders.Could it be because his Uncle, Charles Cutbush, was a colleague and Anderson was "protecting his own" when it came to the wider world reading his memoirs?
Best
Natalie

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Caz,
Well it may be dodgy in that there is no hard evidence that either Irish or Jewish , respected women either more than each other or than any other group.
However,traditionally, the Jewish faith did "institutionally" relegate women to a superior social position,affording them greater respect, as wives and mothers in their role as the sole "passers on" of the Jewish faith.
In practice Christianity is a little more patriarchal.Lineage has always been through the male.
Anyway in Britain,most woman, in and before Victorian times,were regarded as chattels.
Best
Natalie

[Robert Linford]

Was Anderson talking about family relationships and family loyalties? Wasn't he talking about a "stratum" of Jews shielding the killer, rather than the killer's family?

[Paul]

Was Anderson talking about family relationships and family loyalties? Wasn't he talking about a "stratum" of Jews shielding the killer, rather than the killer's family?

Yes he was. In The Globe (7 March 1910) he explained: '“When I stated that the murderer was a Jew, I was stating a simple matter of fact. It is not a matter of theory. I should be the last man in the world to say anything reflecting on the Jews as a community, but what is true of Christians is equally true of Jews — that there are some people who have lapsed from all that is good and proper. We have ‘lapsed masses’ among Christians. We cannot talk of ‘lapsed masses’ among Jews, but there are cliques of them in the East-end, and it is a notorious fact that there is a stratum of Jews who will not give up their people.'

[Paul]

My thoughts were running along the lines of why Anderson added these particular adjectives of "Jew","Polish" and "low Class" to a description of a suspect.

Why did Anderson use those words? Well, I'd say that he used them because the recent immigrant East European population were commonly referred to as low-class Polish Jews because that's what they were.

And actually,talking of Thomas Cutbush, it does appear an extraordinary omission that Anderson appears to have made no mention of the Newspaper coverage given to Thomas Cutbush as suspected Ripper by "The Sun" in 1894...Could it be because his Uncle, Charles Cutbush, was a colleague and Anderson was "protecting his own" when it came to the wider world reading his memoirs?

Anderson had no reason to mention Cutbush or any other suspect. He believed the Polish Jew was Jack, so why should he have mentioned anyone else?

[Natalie Severn]

Why did Anderson use those words? Well, I'd say that he used them because the recent immigrant East European population were commonly referred to as low-class Polish Jews because that's what they were.

Well Paul,to me this "low class Jew" stuff sounds pejorative and elitist from a well educated police chief, its like saying- ....Mary Kelly ,the fifth victim was "bog Irish"-it has the same connotation.....



Anderson had no reason to mention Cutbush or any other suspect. He believed the Polish Jew was Jack, so why should he have mentioned anyone else?

Because he was adopting a totally unilateral position within the police force-moreover a highly contentious one if Major Henry Smith,-----Dew,Macnaghten ,Abberline,Littlechild etc etc are to be believed.Moreover,Cutbush had had a huge press coverage and was the subject of an important police memo----surely Anderson could have referred to it even if it were only to deny its credibility?

[A.P. Wolf]

I thought it worthwhile to look at the general attitude adopted by some of the senior Met. officers towards the Jewish population of the East End, and these example are from Booth's notebooks.
Inspectors Drew, Reid and Baker in that order:
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/drew.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/reid.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/baker.jpg

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for these AP.The last comment by Baker saying that Jew women seemed to lead happier lives than Gentile women and were more respected by their husbands and more faithful seems to go some way to confirm my understanding of the relative honour bestowed on Jewish women , both in the family and the wider Jewish community.
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes, Natalie, and Drew's comments seem to go directly against Anderson's implication that the Jews kept to themselves and wouldn't involve the police in their affairs. Drew seemed fed up with the amount of Jews besieging the police station seeking redress against their fellow Jews.

I think you might have much to say about the next quote from Booth's notebooks, from a senior Met. police officer:

'Of all the forms of prostitutes the Polish Jewess is the worst. They won't let you alone but follow you up and down the street and even catch hold of you. There are generally bullies known to the police as 'ponces' who live on their earnings. The men are more often foreigners than Englishmen and often themselves Polish Jews. It's a curious thing about women like them, the more these men knock them about the more they like them.'

!!!!

[Natalie Severn]

I can well believe both accounts AP!
Most of these who went to the police, were probably carrying on old feuds from their mutual villages of origin.

And although I know it to be a racial stereotype, Jewish women do have a reputation for applying themselves to whatever they decide to do with much energy , zeal and commitment! Possibly forced to make a living this way because of the hard times, the women would no doubt have driven a very hard bargain with those brow beaten Johns, knowing they had a fellar ready to give grief to a smart ass !

[Robert Linford]

"My son, the Messiah.":yo:

[Natalie Severn]

put your dooks up Buster---no messin goin on here:smoker: !

[Robert Linford]

OK then - he's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy.

[Natalie Severn]

naughty,naughty.......oh you are naughty! Titter ye not!

[A.P. Wolf]

Just as long as he wasn't a Catholic, Robert, they never give their own up.

[Robert Linford]

Hi AP

I take it you've seen Barnardo's connection with a "Catholic conspiracy" allegation. I seem to remember it popped up a while back. Anyway, back to Anderson......

[How Brown]

So far, I don't believe any positions have changed amongst us...

Whats it look like to you folks?

Have we come any closer to proving intent on the part of SRA in that he was either an anti-Other ( which, for the sake of spin off arguments, includes Catholics & Jews ) or perhaps an "elitist" who wasn't concerned with the impact of his words 20 years beyond 1888 ? Maybe a concession from those of us who accept we can't prove SRA was either one of these labels and perhaps move on to the next part of the thread?

Or has Mr. B perhaps "seen" how the majority of members seem to interpret SRA's words regarding the Hove Identification? Maybe a concession from Mr. B that we, the stubborn majority, might be right?

Personally, I can't prove my position....that being that I feel very strongly that SRA was somewhat of an elitist gentleman.

But despite that feeling, it may just be a case of SRA just "letting it all hang out" and regardless of who got hurt or insulted, the man said it...and thats that.

I felt my comment about SRA freely mentioning the ethnicity of the suspect, yet not revealing his name in the same breath and never intending to at all, was probably my best shot at convincing Mr. B and those who may be reading this thread of my position.

So, speaking only for myself....I will concede that I can't ( as just one participant on this thread ) prove intent.

[How Brown]

Before I forget, I wanted to mention that the next part of the discussion will focus ( If that is acceptable to the others here....) on SRA in regard to his statements after the murder skein ceased and well before "The Lighter Side...." appeared.

Please let me know...or if Mr. B,Nats,A.P. or anyone else wants to start that ball rolling, then by all means, please feel free to do so....after we conclude the first part of the discussion.

Thank you again.

[Paul]

Or has Mr. B perhaps "seen" how the majority of members seem to interpret SRA's words regarding the Hove Identification? Maybe a concession from Mr. B that we, the stubborn majority, might be right?

Hi Howard,
I'm sitting in a hotel in Manchester right now and about to leave, but I'll make a reply as soon as I get home.

[A.P. Wolf]

What! You are still at the conference, Paul?
Yikes!

[Paul]

What! You are still at the conference, Paul?
Yikes!

I don't attend them, A.P. Anyway, wasn't the Conference at Wolverhampton?

[Paul]

Have we come any closer to proving intent on the part of SRA in that he was either an anti-Other ( which, for the sake of spin off arguments, includes Catholics & Jews ) or perhaps an "elitist" who wasn't concerned with the impact of his words 20 years beyond 1888 ? Maybe a concession from those of us who accept we can't prove SRA was either one of these labels and perhaps move on to the next part of the thread?

Or has Mr. B perhaps "seen" how the majority of members seem to interpret SRA's words regarding the Hove Identification? Maybe a concession from Mr. B that we, the stubborn majority, might be right?

I can see how Robert Anderson's words have been interpreted, but to be fair we all knew before this thread began how and why that interpretation had been reached. What I wanted to see here was evidence or even good, solid argument in support of that interprtation. And so far I haven't really seen any.

Anderson made some statements which appear to be the sole evidence upon which is based the argument that Anderson was anti-Semitic and they could indeed show that Anderson was an anti-Semite, but equally they could be straightforward statements of fact and only appear to be anti-Semitic to modern, more 'politically correct' eyes. Our job is to provide the evidence for either possibility. I have argued for and provided evidence to support the latter.

What is the evidence for the former? So, yes, I know and understand why Anderson is perceived by some as an anti-Semite and by others as an elitist, but I don't really see much evidence (or, to be frank, any evidence) for that perception.

[How Brown]

In regard to SRA's statements which are being discussed here, maybe its SRA himself who sums it up best:

" I recognize that in this matter I said either too much or too little.... But the fact is that as my words were merely a repetition of what I published several years ago without exciting comment, they flowed from my pen without any consideration" March 11th, 1910 (Jewish Chronicle )

If anyone else wishes to civilly counter the position made by Mr. B, then by all means do so at this time...

[How Brown]

I almost forgot !

John Malcolm might be coming around these here parts today...so lets keep the current theme alive until Mr. Malcolm stops by.

[Natalie Severn]

Paul,
It would appear to me that there is a wealth of material to challenge Anderson"s assertions about a "low class Polish Jew" suspect-from the" there at the time", Acting Commissioner of the City Police,Major Henry Smith ,to the "writing at the time" outraged Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, vehemently protesting against the slurs coming from various quarters including the police,to all those policemen who themselves declared the identity of the Ripper was unknown [including those like Abberline who scoffed at the very notion that he was either a Polish Jew or drowned doctor].
But lets have a look at how Robert Anderson"s remarks are perceived by a Jewish person living today.
Professor William J Fishman is unequivocal:[see pages 268 and 269 of his widely quoted book now used and recommended extensively in schools in London,"East End 1888" by Prof William Fishman-----a leading authority on the East End Jewish Community of 1888:

"Anti-Semitism was prevalent in the hierarchy of the metropolitan police.Sir Robert Anderson,Assistant Commissioner and head of CID in September, was convinced the Ripper was a Jew. His chief, Sir Charles Warren , who disliked him took the opposite view and was determined to refute anti Jewish accusations......."

and Fishman goes on to forcefully state,

"There was no shred of evidence that the killer was a Jew" ----- very similar sentiments to those stated in the Jewish Chronicle of 1888 and by the Chief Rabbi that same year.
Best
Natalie


Clearly to a Jewish person Sir Robert appears pretty biased!

[A.P. Wolf]

I don't do conference either, Paul.

Actually I'm in broad agreement with you that Anderson was not anti-Semtic. I 've never thought otherwise.
However what I do believe is that the comments he made at the time were ill-timed, ill-informed and inflamatory to an extreme... so I guess I would say that the particular comments he made that we discuss here were essentially of an anti-Semitic nature.

[John Malcolm]

As one of the seemingly very few who would have to admit being on the "Anderson Up" side, I do find it necessary to give weight to the overwhelming bulk of contrary opinion; unfortunately (for me), I continue to stick to the belief that what he has said about the murders/murderer has to outweigh not only the supposed opposition of his contemporaries, but, much more importantly, has to outweigh our own interpretations of these questions. Despite the very careful scrutiny of the pros and cons that has been undertaken by "Ripperologists" today, I think most of us should admit that we can be just as guilty of sticking to a "theory" once we have formed it, as we accuse Anderson of. I think the main reason I'm stuck on Anderson is because of the repeated assertions he made, in his own words, in print, which seem to me not only consistent, but at times impassioned. Of course, if he were mad or delusional, that "theory" would be easily disposed of. And I think a serious distinction must be made between what has gone to print directly from the source and what has gone through press "interviews." And, by the way, I do believe Anderson himself did sum it up best with his "too much or too little" statement. It's too bad we don't have him here today to defend himself.

[Robert Linford]

Hi John

If only Swanson's marginalia had backed up Anderson on every particular. I'd feel more confidence in Anderson. As it is, Swanson'e comments are a bit of a double-edged sword.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi John,
I agree with you that we can and frequently do, all get fixated on a suspect and it is tempting to look for confirmation for our suspect from those who were there at the time-especially the police.
However, if anyone appears to have been dealt an unfair hand in both life and posthumously ,it appears to me to have been Aaron Kosminski and his Jewish family and community of 1888.
I will explain: from the time he was admitted to Colney Hatch in 1891, to his death in 1919, there is not a single jot of evidence that anyone in either Colney Hatch or Leavesdon even remotely suspected this person of b eing the Ripper-this is quite apart from no one like Abberline giving the theory any credence whatsoever!
Aaron Kosminski was, in fact, recorded over some 30 years as being a harmless patient,though mentally deteriorating throughout-this according to surviving records.Now if you or I had been working in Leavesdon for example, as day orderlies or nurses ,with the man suspected of being JtR at any time between 1891 and 1919 , wouldnt you have thought that we,as workers, from a health and safety point of view ,would have been entitled to know of such a person"s case history?Or that at the very least,he had at one time,prior to commital , been violently dangerous ?Wouldnt someone, somewhere at some point in time have at least hinted at it,gossiped inadvertently about it, then or later on?
Why pretend he was a simple schizophrenic so to speak,just the same as others if everybody knew he was actually a notorious criminal killer?
But apart from all this Aaron Kosminski had an extremely sad life in the wards of an asylum for the insane for 30 years and I believe both he and his family, and his Jewish Community come to that, may now deserve to be vindicated from such a grotesque accusation.
Best
Natalie

[John Malcolm]

Robert,
I agree that the Swanson Marginalia create serious problems with regard to any reasonable scenario that can be proposed to reconcile Anderson's suspect, etc.; the recent whisperings that part of Swanson's notes may not be genuine would perhaps unclutter things if it were true, but of course that would create an entirely new set of problems. It's incredibly frustrating, but I think to just toss out Anderson's words as "addle-headed nonsense" isn't going to help us get any closer to the truth. Anderson could certainly be a dodgy dude, but I think sometimes we try too hard to make pieces fit into the various overlapping puzzles that we're working with simultaneously; and a hammer just doesn't seem to be the right tool for this situation either way.

Hi Natalie,
You raise some very good points. There are definitely issues with Aaron's candidacy for the title of the "Whitechapel Fiend," and circumstantial evidence does point towards him as being "Anderson's suspect." For some time I leaned strongly toward the David Cohen angle, but, honestly, I have no answer to the Kosminski questions. Working with Rob House (my wife translates the Polish documents for him), I feel a certain closeness with the people he and Chris Phillips have been researching, but, even as my leanings may have changed, I still can only say that I only have "one foot on the Kosminski bus." And the other one is dragging hard behind. I'm not convinced yet that he was the suspect, but he was obviously one of them. I'm not convinced that Hove was the place of the identification and I'm very doubtful that Lawende was Anderson's witness. Of course that flies in the face of many more knowledgable than I, and that in itself diminishes the confidence I have in my perceptions, but, there you go.

[Robert Linford]

Hi John

I agree, Anderson must be kept in the picture and his remarks given a satisfactory explanation. Whether he was right or wrong, it will be necessary to find some sort of explanation - not least, because we have Swanson to consider too, and it doesn't look as if Swanson is merely supporting Anderson out of respect for him - the differences in their versions seem to imply that much.

Robert

[Paul]

Paul,
It would appear to me that there is a wealth of material to challenge Anderson"s assertions about a "low class Polish Jew" suspect-from the" there at the time", Acting Commissioner of the City Police,Major Henry Smith ,to the "writing at the time" outraged Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, vehemently protesting against the slurs coming from various quarters including the police,to all those policemen who themselves declared the identity of the Ripper was unknown [including those like Abberline who scoffed at the very notion that he was either a Polish Jew or drowned doctor].
But lets have a look at how Robert Anderson"s remarks are perceived by a Jewish person living today.
Professor William J Fishman is unequivocal:[see pages 268 and 269 of his widely quoted book now used and recommended extensively in schools in London,"East End 1888" by Prof William Fishman-----a leading authority on the East End Jewish Community of 1888:

"Anti-Semitism was prevalent in the hierarchy of the metropolitan police.Sir Robert Anderson,Assistant Commissioner and head of CID in September, was convinced the Ripper was a Jew. His chief, Sir Charles Warren , who disliked him took the opposite view and was determined to refute anti Jewish accusations......."

and Fishman goes on to forcefully state,

"There was no shred of evidence that the killer was a Jew" ----- very similar sentiments to those stated in the Jewish Chronicle of 1888 and by the Chief Rabbi that same year.
Best
Natalie


Clearly to a Jewish person Sir Robert appears pretty biased!

Hi Natalie,
Professor Fishman interpreted Anderson's statement as anti-Semitic, but on what evidence? As far as I can see it's the same old argument: Anderson is anti-Semitic because he said Jack the Ripper was a Jew.

Anyway, Professor Fishman wrote his book in 1987 and it was published in 1988. He was writing before the publication of Martin Fido's The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, the first book to seriously examine Anderson, and before the 'discovery' of the Swanson marginalia, so his opinion was not based on the information we have today.

I'd also like to know what evidence there is that ‘anti-Semitism was prevalent in the hierarchy of the Metropolitan Police’? What evidence there is that Sir Charles Warren disliked Anderson? What evidence is there that Warren took an opinion opposite to Anderson’s? And what evidence is there that Warren ‘was determined to refute anti-Jewish accusations’?

[Paul]

I don't do conference either, Paul.

Actually I'm in broad agreement with you that Anderson was not anti-Semtic. I 've never thought otherwise.
However what I do believe is that the comments he made at the time were ill-timed, ill-informed and inflamatory to an extreme... so I guess I would say that the particular comments he made that we discuss here were essentially of an anti-Semitic nature.

I have no trouble with his statement being ill-timed (although there has probably never been a time when they would have been otherwise) or that they were inflamatory (again, though, I wonder if they would ever not have been inflamatory), but I'm not sure that they were ill-informed. That they were in any sense anti-Semitic is, of course the subject of this discussion.

[Paul]

Hi John,
I agree with you that we can and frequently do, all get fixated on a suspect and it is tempting to look for confirmation for our suspect from those who were there at the time-especially the police.
However, if anyone appears to have been dealt an unfair hand in both life and posthumously ,it appears to me to have been Aaron Kosminski and his Jewish family and community of 1888.
I will explain: from the time he was admitted to Colney Hatch in 1891, to his death in 1919, there is not a single jot of evidence that anyone in either Colney Hatch or Leavesdon even remotely suspected this person of b eing the Ripper-this is quite apart from no one like Abberline giving the theory any credence whatsoever!
Aaron Kosminski was, in fact, recorded over some 30 years as being a harmless patient,though mentally deteriorating throughout-this according to surviving records.Now if you or I had been working in Leavesdon for example, as day orderlies or nurses ,with the man suspected of being JtR at any time between 1891 and 1919 , wouldnt you have thought that we,as workers, from a health and safety point of view ,would have been entitled to know of such a person"s case history?Or that at the very least,he had at one time,prior to commital , been violently dangerous ?Wouldnt someone, somewhere at some point in time have at least hinted at it,gossiped inadvertently about it, then or later on?
Why pretend he was a simple schizophrenic so to speak,just the same as others if everybody knew he was actually a notorious criminal killer?
But apart from all this Aaron Kosminski had an extremely sad life in the wards of an asylum for the insane for 30 years and I believe both he and his family, and his Jewish Community come to that, may now deserve to be vindicated from such a grotesque accusation.
Best
Natalie

Hi Natalie,
Apart from information given on his admission forms we only have very terse twice yearly reports almost exclusively concerned with his physical health and which several times simply reported ‘no change’. These reports do not once mention anything Aaron Kosminski said, or say how his audio and visual hallucinations manifested themselves. For all we knew he could have admitted he was Jack the Ripper, described the murders, declared a hatred for women, and so on, and it wouldn’t have been mentioned in those twice-yearly reports because they didn’t record anythinghe said.

And maybe people did gossip about it; there are plenty of rumours in the newspapers that Jack the Ripper was the inmate of an asylum.

Do we know for sure that staff were informed about the past history of the patients in their care or of suspicions that they had committed criminal acts?

Maybe the asylum authorities were informed but by the time Aaron was admitted he had ceased to be violent and dangerous and the suspicions of the police and others weren’t widely communicated.

Or maybe the hospital authorities weren’t informed. Aaron Kosminski was committed by his family, who maybe decided not to tell the authorities that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper? Maybe the police similarly didn’t inform the hospital authorities.

The point is, if Aaron Kosminski was the suspect (and currently there is no other candidate), and if there was a witness and there was a positive identification and if Anderson did believe that the suspect was indeed Jack the Ripper, then either the asylum authorities were informed of that belief and the records of that fact no longer exist, or they weren’t informed and we can think Anderson negligent - although I think we'd have to establish first whether it was cutomary for the police to inform asylum authorities of their suspicions, especially when, in this case, the subject was comitted by his family.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,
Professor Fishman interpreted Anderson's statement as anti-Semitic, but on what evidence? As far as I can see it's the same old argument: Anderson is anti-Semitic because he said Jack the Ripper was a Jew.

Anyway, Professor Fishman wrote his book in 1987 and it was published in 1988. He was writing before the publication of Martin Fido's The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, the first book to seriously examine Anderson, and before the 'discovery' of the Swanson marginalia, so his opinion was not based on the information we have today.

I'd also like to know what evidence there is that ‘anti-Semitism was prevalent in the hierarchy of the Metropolitan Police’? What evidence there is that Sir Charles Warren disliked Anderson? What evidence is there that Warren took an opinion opposite to Anderson’s? And what evidence is there that Warren ‘was determined to refute anti-Jewish accusations’?


Well Paul, glancing through the Jewish Chronicles posted elsewhere on a forum and covering a period from 14th Sept 1888 to November 16th 1888 its clear that there is growing alarm about "those making a deliberate attempt to connect The Jews with the Whitechapel murders"---JC Fri 12th Oct 1888.

and then

In 1910 ,when Robert Anderson referred in March of that year to his "Jack the Ripper as 'low class" Jew" theory ,The Jewish Chronicle protested very vigorously indeed:
" a wicked assertion to put in print,without a shadow of evidence" etc -
"was anything more nonsensical in the way of a theory ever conceived"etc
----the sense of outrage is palpable----particularly with regard to Anderson"s belief /implication that the Jewish Community was unusual in its ability the come together and shield a murderer"

But I guess you either hear the roar of outrage and indignation from the voices of those accused ----or you dont,
All the Best,
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

I suppose the best way I can put it to you, Paul, is to suggest that stewards who worked for the Cunard Line are very likely to become serial killers of prostitutes. This would suggest that I have some evidence for this statement, which I do, but as a reasonable individual I would also expect stewards who worked for the Pacific & Orient Line to become serial killers of prostitutes.
Or anyone else for that matter.

As I said to you some time before, Anderson was villifying the Jew as a race for something that was the act of an individual, and that is where his comments are laid bare for what they are... but as I also said, we'll never agree on that.

[Paul]

Well Paul, glancing through the Jewish Chronicles posted elsewhere on a forum and covering a period from 14th Sept 1888 to November 16th 1888 its clear that there is growing alarm about "those making a deliberate attempt to connect The Jews with the Whitechapel murders"---JC Fri 12th Oct 1888.

and then

In 1910 ,when Robert Anderson referred in March of that year to his "Jack the Ripper as 'low class" Jew" theory ,The Jewish Chronicle protested very vigorously indeed:
" a wicked assertion to put in print,without a shadow of evidence" etc -
"was anything more nonsensical in the way of a theory ever conceived"etc
----the sense of outrage is palpable----particularly with regard to Anderson"s belief /implication that the Jewish Community was unusual in its ability the come together and shield a murderer"

But I guess you either hear the roar of outrage and indignation from the voices of those accused ----or you dont,
All the Best,
Natalie

Hi Natalie,
Or you hear a roar of outrage and indignation which isn't there.

To begin with, the concerns expressed in 1888 had nothing to do with Anderson but were in particular a response to newspaper stories about the Ritter case, but also the Leather Apron scare, the GSG, and suggestions from private inividuals that the murders were committed by A Jewish slaughterman.

Turning to 1910, as already discussed, Mentor stated that he was not unduly concerned by Anderson's claim that the murderer was a Jew, but by Anderson's apparent claim that the whole Jewish community protected the murderer. This was a misinterpretation of what Anderson actually wrote and was one which Anderson strongly denied. Mentor also argued that Anderson offered up no proof to support his claim, to which Anderson quite rightly replied that “In stating what I do about the Whitechapel murders, l am not speaking as an expert in crime, but as a man who investigated the facts.' This left Mentor arguing, rghtly albeit somewhat lamely, that this might be so but that he would hesitate to brand the man the Ripper without a jury conviction.

Now, Mentor criticised Anderson for writing what he did and the criticism was not without justification, as Anderson himself acknowledged when he replied that he had either written too much or too little, and perhaps it would have been better if he had written nothing at all, but Mentor did not accuse Anderson of anti-Semitism and Anderson strongly denied that he intended to cast any aspersions on Jews or on their faith but that he was simply stating the facts and that neither race nor religion were factors, writing: ‘in his case every question of nationality and creed is lost in a ghastly study of human nature sunk to the lowest depth of degradation.’

Natalie, two articles by a columnist in the Jewish Chronicle and a single interview with Anderson on the subject in The Globe hardly suggests that there was a 'roar' of outrage and indignation or of anything else. Indeed, what is remarkable is that Anderson's words caused such little comment. Here was an admission that the identity of Jack the Ripper was known and not a single newspaper seems to have sought further information!

What is important here is that if Anderson was anti-Semitic then he might have been less rigorous in his assessment of the evidence against the suspect than he would otherwise have been, so it is important to establish his anti-Semitism. We can suggest that Anderson might have been anti-Semitic and judge his assessment of the evidence accordingly, but 'might' is a far cry from 'was', especially as we appear to be lacking evidence for the suggestion and Anderson himself rejected the suggestion outright and without prevarication.

[Paul]

As I said to you some time before, Anderson was villifying the Jew as a race for something that was the act of an individual, and that is where his comments are laid bare for what they are... but as I also said, we'll never agree on that.

We don’t have to agree, A.P. We can each assess the evidence and legitimately reach differing conclusions - historians do that all the time – but I’m having trouble establishing what the evidence actually is. I don’t know where Anderson was vilifying the whole Jewish race for the act of an individual. But even if I accept that he did do that, I can’t see where it is shown to have been intentional. ‘I should be the last man in the world to say anything reflecting on the Jews as a community’, said Anderson. And ‘”As for the suggestion that I intended to cast any reflection on the Jews anyone who has read my books on Biblical exegesis will know the high estimate I have of Jews religiously.”’ He can't have denied intent more clearly than that.

[How Brown]

Dear Mr. B:

Do you think ( as a brief aside to the discussion ) that there were personal issues that Major Smith had with SRA that may have provided fodder for his "outburst" towards the statements of Anderson?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul,
First of all ,I do understand the importance you attach to Anderson in this matter,and I agree with you about it .
However its important too to acknowledge that Victorian Society was riddled with prejudice regarding" Women, Race and Class" and realise that Robert Anderson was almost certainly no exception, not if his remarks about the vulnerable women on the streets of Whitechapel are anything to go by.With regard to his remarks about these women and the class they came from* -you can hear it when he advises "withrawing police protection" from destitute women of a particular class ,on the streets after midnight--- the Rippers victims ----little humanity or compassion , just a terse- "no respectable woman [of a superior class] need fear" he inferred in his statements . Abberline ,by contrast said he often gave these poor women money to get them off the streets-he couldnt bear to see them putting their lives in danger on such dangerous territory,late at night.
And his position on Race seems no less reactionary.Take his position on Ireland where we have important examples of both Anderson"s intransigence .From his days of service in Dublin Castle"s Secret police dept., he appears to have been a died in the wood,unbending "Orange man" ,prepared to pursue any means necessary to achieve his goal.Which is not to say that he did not have to deal with "died in the wool Fenian terrorists"
But Self Government for the Irish people appears to have been an anathema to him,something he simly could not countenance even via a slow evolutionary process beginning with" Home Rule " via Parliamentary Democracy.It all just had to be promptly "terminated" and its supporters destroyed----oh yes -I know,Paul----ofcourse along with his colleagues Monro,[up to a point] and Prime Minister Salisbury etc etc.In this regard though ,which he appears to shows himself to have been a zealot,his position on Ireland of a very different order from say Sir Edward Jenkinson, or his patron Earl Spencer,or even the prevaricating Gladstone .Winston Churchill ,as we know, had the flexibility of mind,-with possibly some political opportunism thrown in,to, like Jenkinson , countenance the inevitability of change and he became a supporter of Home Rule.But no change in "mind set" seems to have been possible for Robert Anderson-again unlike James Monro who said he simply couldnt go on doing wrong and he went off to become a missionary instead.

With regards your point about JtR revelations.I believe there was little interest in what Robert Anderson had to say about Jack the Ripper by 1910, especially as most of his contemporaries from the police force, refuted his claims ,point blank.
By 1910 they seem to have all been giving each other the wink, whenever his name appeared in print .In fact they seem to have been treating each of his serialised "revelations" as "another of Anderson"s Fairy tales"......
Best
Natalie
*can provide the quote if needed Paul.

[Paul]

Dear Mr. B: Do you think ( as a brief aside to the discussion ) that there were personal issues that Major Smith had with SRA that may have provided fodder for his "outburst" towards the statements of Anderson?

It's entirely possible. Equally, he may simply have misunderstood Anderson or just resented Anderson saying that the killer was known when, as far as Smith was concerned, he wasn't.

[Paul]

With regards your point about JtR revelations.I believe there was little interest in what Robert Anderson had to say about Jack the Ripper by 1910, especially as most of his contemporaries from the police force, refuted his claims ,point blank.

By 1910 they seem to have all been giving each other the wink, whenever his name appeared in print .In fact they seem to have been treating each of his serialised "revelations" as "another of Anderson"s Fairy tales"......


Hi Natalie,
I know Victorian society was riddled with prejudices, albeit they are prejudices to our eyes, not necessarily to theirs, and that Anderson will have had his fair share, but the question is whether or not there is evidence that Anderson was anti-Semitic to the point that it would have coloured his assessment of the evidence against the suspect. That's the claim people have made and it's almost becoming an accepted fact, but I don't know of any good evidence for it and I'm asking for some.

It's like what you say above -there is no reason to suppose that by 1910 people were disinterested in what specifically Robert Anderson had to say about Jack the Ripper. And which contemporaries were refuting him point blank, and where on earth is there any evidence that they were tippng each other the wink whenever his name appeared in print? This sort of stuff must be supported by evidence, sources must be cited. Not just for Anderson, but for anyone. On another thread Howard and others have discussed and bemoaned how easy it is for canards to be created and repeated - Druitt was a failed barrister Donston was a black magician, and so on.

Cheers
Paul

[A.P. Wolf]

Agreed, Paul.
Anderson certainly had nothing but respect for the Jewish nation in terms of biblical study; and much of his work is still oft quoted by Jewish clerics today, but his comments in the regard we discuss here do seem unusual and perhaps untoward, given his superb knowledge of Jewish custom and etiquette.
My impression is that he was perhaps flogging a dead horse just to get it entered into the race. There is no doubt that Scotland Yard has suffered from a fixation with the idea that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew, and was hidden by his relatives or friends... and this is as true today as it was in the early 1900's. The latest revelations from Scotland Yard again cast a Jew in the role, even if he wasn't really a Jew, and it seems they have become fixated on this strange idea.

[Chris G.]

Dear Mr. B:

Do you think ( as a brief aside to the discussion ) that there were personal issues that Major Smith had with SRA that may have provided fodder for his "outburst" towards the statements of Anderson?

It's entirely possible. Equally, he may simply have misunderstood Anderson or just resented Anderson saying that the killer was known when, as far as Smith was concerned, he wasn't.

Hi Paul and Howard

Since it is known that the City Police were watching a Jewish suspect (vide Scott Nelson's article, "The Butcher's Row Suspect - Was He Jack the Ripper?" in Ripperologist 84), possibly Sir Henry Smith was voicing his opinion because he knew it was not the "done deal" that the suspect Anderson was pointing to was the killer. This could apply if the man the City Police were watching was the same man that Anderson meant, i.e., Kosminski, or else if it was a different man, who Smith might have thought just as likely to have been the murderer.

All the best

Chris

[Paul]

My impression is that he was perhaps flogging a dead horse just to get it entered into the race. There is no doubt that Scotland Yard has suffered from a fixation with the idea that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew...

Frankly, A.P., I don't know why Anderson would have been interested in getting a horse into the race at all, let alone trying to get a dead one to the starting gate. But who knows...

[A.P. Wolf]

Who knows, indeed, Paul.
I was just reading the following from the 'New York Times' concerning Macnaghten's retirement; and yes, the race was on, very much so, even in 1913.

'Knew 'Jack the Ripper'.
Late Scotland Yard Head says he was 'a fascinating Criminal'.
Special cable to the New York Times.

'London, June 1 - Sir Melville Macnaghten, head of the criminal investigation department of Scotland Yard, who has just retired, has made an interesting disclosure in reference to 'Jack the Ripper' who terroriized the East End and murdered seven women in 1888. The murderer, according to Sir Melville, committed suicide soon after the last killing.
'That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide; but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me. I have destroyed all my documents, and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.'

Now if that ain't a red rag to a bull I don't know what is.
Could we merely be looking at some kind of showmanship here, amongst all the senior officers involved?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul,
re" tipping each other the wink"-
page 46 /Fenian Fire:
House of Commons,21st April 1910,3.45p.m.

"I take it that the statement of Sir Robert Anderson that he had the permission
of his official superior to write these articles for The Times ," quipped Mr McVeagh,[Irish MP] "may be treated as another of "Anderson"s Fairy Tales".

"I could not have put it better myself, said Mr Churchill winningly"[Winston that was!]
his flights of fancy almost seem to have become a bit of a joke, Paul....

Best

Natalie

[Paul]

Hi Paul,
re" tipping each other the wink"-
page 46 /Fenian Fire:
House of Commons,21st April 1910,3.45p.m.

"I take it that the statement of Sir Robert Anderson that he had the permission
of his official superior to write these articles for The Times ," quipped Mr McVeagh,[Irish MP] "may be treated as another of "Anderson"s Fairy Tales".

"I could not have put it better myself, said Mr Churchill winningly"[Winston that was!]
his flights of fancy almost seem to have become a bit of a joke, Paul....

Best

Natalie

Hi Natalie,
I cover all this in Jack the Ripper: The Facts. It had long been suspected that the Salisbury administration had assisted The Times in its attack on Parnell and Anderson's admission to have authored Parnellism and Crime gave certain parties the opportunity to ty to prize the lid off a can of worms which the then government was equally determined to kep firmly shut. Anderson got caught in the crossfire and his claim to have had Monro's permission to write the articles, denied by Monro, was described by Macveigh as 'another of Anderse(o)n's fairy tales. The quip was not a suggestion that Sir Robert Anderson had told other fairy tales, but was a reference to Hans Christian Andersen.

Itis highly probable that Monro tacitly agreed that Anderson should author the articles. Evidence from the files indicates that Monro certainly did know of Anderson's authorship by the end of 1888 and expressed no disapproval.

I'm afraid there were no flights of fancy to be joked about.
Cheers
Paul

[Stan Russo]

Paul,

I agree with you that Monro did know about Anderson's authorship of the articles connecting Parnell to Fenian terrorism/crime. The problem is that no one is willing to recognize what that truly implies.

As far as this current issue is concerned, I believe that a fundamental question must be asked, which will truly help understand the issue at hand:

Was George Washington a racist?

[Chris G.]

Anderson got caught in the crossfire and his claim to have had Monro's permission to write the articles, denied by Monro, was described by Macveigh as 'another of Anderse(o)n's fairy tales. The quip was not a suggestion that Sir Robert Anderson had told other fairy tales, but was a reference to Hans Christian Andersen.



Hi Paul

Of course the allusion is a play on the name of Hans Christian Andersen but isn't the joke being made precisely because the implication is that Sir Robert was capable of such fairy tales? If that wasn't so the humor would be lost, wouldn't it? That is, the statement doesn't just rest on the play on the similarity of the names.

Chris

[Caroline Morris]

'That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide; but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me. I have destroyed all my documents, and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.'

Now if that ain't a red rag to a bull I don't know what is.
Could we merely be looking at some kind of showmanship here, amongst all the senior officers involved?

Hi AP,

You see this is what has always really bugged me, whether we are talking about 2008 or 1888 or anytime in between. No policeman, however senior, has any business in my view claiming to know, or to be morally certain, or to 'have a very clear idea' of the identity of an unconvicted offender. It is the job of a jury made up of members of the public to decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and thank goodness for that.

If the evidence against a particular ripper suspect had appeared overwhelming, but no trial possible because he was dead or not fit to plead, it might not have been quite so morally questionable if the senior officers involved had at least proceeded to sing with one voice, whether or not they intentionally destroyed any material evidence along the way. But it's ten times worse when we have two or more senior policemen singing like canaries about the presumed guilt of two or more different Jack the Rippers, whose identities would become known or possible to guess, but not a shred of proper evidence (including how each first aroused suspicion) would ever be forthcoming.

It's not cricket, is it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Paul]

Hi Paul

Of course the allusion is a play on the name of Hans Christian Andersen but isn't the joke being made precisely because the implication is that Sir Robert was capable of such fairy tales? If that wasn't so the humor would be lost, wouldn't it? That is, the statement doesn't just rest on the play on the similarity of the names.

Chris

Monro denied that he had authorised Anderson to write the articles and the inference is that in claiming that he had Monro's permission Anderson was lying, or telling a fairy tale, and his story was thus another tale to add to Hans Christien Andersen's collection. I have no evidence whatsoever that there was any implication in MacVeagh's words that Anderson was noted for telling lies. Churchill criticised Anderson for being garrulous and boastful, which Anderson was no more so than any other memoirist (just look at Major Smith), but was not said to be inaccurate or a liar.

[Paul]

It's not cricket, is it?

Hi Caz,
It may not be cricket but it's what happened then and it's what's happened since, similar claims having been made in connection with Jack the Stripper and most notably with the Yorkshire Ripper. Anderson was at least trying to offer reassurance that undiscovered crimes in London were uncommon.

[A.P. Wolf]

It certainly isn't the way that my grandfather played cricket, Caz, and he played at Lords on numerous occasions.
As I said previously it seems to me that we look at some form of showmanship here, where each senior officer was trying to crow louder than the other to attract the punters to his intimate thoughts on the greatest criminal mystery of the age.
It seems no accident to me that Anderson's 'revelations' were quickly followed by Macnaghten's, and then hot on his heels came Littlechild with his Dr T.
My honest impression is that any of these senior officers would have made up any kind of fairy tale to have got himself into print in this regard... and damn the poor sods that they falsely fingered,
I mean, Macnaghten's claim in that piece I posted from the New York Times is probably the most crass thing I ever read in my life.
What a complete and utter shite he was.

[Paul]

It certainly isn't the way that my grandfather played cricket, Caz, and he played at Lords on numerous occasions.
As I said previously it seems to me that we look at some form of showmanship here, where each senior officer was trying to crow louder than the other to attract the punters to his intimate thoughts on the greatest criminal mystery of the age.
It seems no accident to me that Anderson's 'revelations' were quickly followed by Macnaghten's, and then hot on his heels came Littlechild with his Dr T.
My honest impression is that any of these senior officers would have made up any kind of fairy tale to have got himself into print in this regard... and damn the poor sods that they falsely fingered,
I mean, Macnaghten's claim in that piece I posted from the New York Times is probably the most crass thing I ever read in my life.
What a complete and utter shite he was.

Hi A.P.
That piece was originally published in and was said in part of an interview given to the Daily Mail. Anderson, of course, had written in 1910, three years before Macnaghten, and Littlechild wrote of Dr T in a letter that was not intended for publication. Two sources in three years - this was shwmanship, was crowing louder than the other?

[Natalie Severn]

I dont think its fair of AP to call Macnaghten a complete and utter shite and not Anderson. Anderson was just as much a shite in the sense that his words,without recourse to the justice system, criminalised a defenceless man who was already imprisoned by an illness that completely ruined his life...as well as them casting blame on a Jewish community already suffering from anti-semitic targeting and unrest in Whitechapel.
Best to All
Natalie

[How Brown]

You see this is what has always really bugged me, whether we are talking about 2008 or 1888 or anytime in between. No policeman, however senior, has any business in my view claiming to know, or to be morally certain, or to 'have a very clear idea' of the identity of an unconvicted offender. It is the job of a jury made up of members of the public to decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and thank goodness for that.-- Caz

Nicely put,if I may be so bold, Caz. Very nicely stated.

Even IF the person was identified by the witness, it still didn't prove he was the killer. He wasn't on "trial" at that identification.

It would have been nice if Anderson had included some sort of evidence in print to further point out what made the 'suspect' guilty.

[A.P. Wolf]

Agreed, Natalie, seeing as you put it so eloquently.
They were all over-inflated bags of wind each serving their own nefarious purpose and gigantic egos.

[Paul]

I dont think its fair of AP to call Macnaghten a complete and utter shite and not Anderson. Anderson was just as much a shite in the sense that his words,without recourse to the justice system, criminalised a defenceless man who was already imprisoned by an illness that completely ruined his life...as well as them casting blame on a Jewish community already suffering from anti-semitic targeting and unrest in Whitechapel.
Best to All
Natalie

Actally, Anderson's words did not make anyone a criminal. But for the Macnaghten memoranda and the Swanson marginalia we wouldn't have the foggiest notion about whom Anderson was talking. As for his words casting blame on the Jewish community, if he'd said that Jack the Ripper was a chinaman I doubt that anyone would be up in arms about it. Were the Jews any more or less a targeted section of our population in 1910? One might as well argue that we shouldn't really discuss the theory today because there are still anti-Semites out there who use it to support there stupid beliefs.

[Paul]

It would have been nice if Anderson had included some sort of evidence in print to further point out what made the 'suspect' guilty.

It would indeed have been wonderful if Anderson had included some sort of evidence, but I guess he didn't feel that he had to. As head of the C.I.D. at the time and presumably fully conversant with the facts, he probably felt that he had the knowledge and authority to make a bald statement and be believed. We don't similarly demand that those writing their memoirs support with chapter and verse every statement they make. Anyway, if Anderson had given more information he'd probably now be being hauled over the coals for giving away too much information and possibly enabling people to identify the untrid suspect.

[Paul]

Agreed, Natalie, seeing as you put it so eloquently.
They were all over-inflated bags of wind each serving their own nefarious purpose and gigantic egos.

'Nefarious purpose'? C'mon A.P., where's the evidence for that? As for being ego-driven over-inflated wind-bags, the same could presumably be said of everyone who writes a memoir, or, I guess writes pretty much anything intended for public cosumption, including blogs and contributions to message boards and so on - these people must be hugely ego-centric to assume that anyone's interested in their thoughts and opinions and experiences, mustn't they?

Sheesh, these people wrote their memoirs, one tiny bit of which referenced an old and cold caseand made some statements of a kind which were not then and have not since been unusual or exceptional, and you've got 'em up before the Inquisition!

[A.P. Wolf]

By nefarious purpose, Paul, I of course mean the urge to gush into print with 'well of course I knew who Jack the Ripper was, but I can't say so and I have destroyed all the documents which show that', which to me serves no good purpose apart from stroking ego. Even when the varmints couldn't get into print they satisfied that strange need by writing annotations in the works of those that did.
It's a disease that I don't understand, at all.
And as we can tell from our present discussion it served absolutely no good purpose apart from confusing their readers.
Inquisition? Na, not a bit of it, but I do hear the slight click of a Tranter safety catch.

[Chris G.]

Hi Paul and AP

The term "hill of beans" comes to mind. Since the Ripper case had subsided in memory by 1910 and was not studied under the microscope and dissected as it is today, what did it really matter to anyone much what Sir Robert Anderson wrote in his memoirs about the person or persons who committed the murders? At the time, hard as it is for us to appreciate now, it didn't mean a hill of beans except to a few retired coppers and a few criminologistically inclined scribes such as George R. Sims.

All the best

Chris

[Stan Russo]

I see no one fully understodd my George Washington comment. It was not meant to be a joke and specifically related to Anderson's alleged anti-semitism.

Continue on though

[Chris G.]

I see no one fully understodd my George Washington comment. It was not meant to be a joke and specifically related to Anderson's alleged anti-semitism.

Continue on though


Hi Stan

I understood what you meant, Stan.

Chris

[A.P. Wolf]

That's a very good point, Chris, and seems to make sense, but fortunately we have a data base - 'The Making of Modern Law' - which usefully covers the period from 1888 to 1926, featuring all and any book publications which make reference to either Jack the Ripper or the Whitechapel Murders during those years, and what those results show is that after 1900 there was a very real increase of interest from the publishing world in this very regard.
For instance between the years 1888 - 1899 there were a total of 12 books published which mentioned Jack the Ripper.
In the years 1900 - 1926 there were a total of 49 books published which mentioned Jack the Ripper.
In the years 1888 -1899 there were a total of 10 books published which mentioned the Whitechapel Murders.
But in the years 1900 - 1926 there were a total of 19 books published which mentioned the Whitechapel Murders.
This would seem to indicate an upsurge of interest in the subject from the publishing world which happily coincided with the retirement of the chief officers involved in the investigation.

[Chris G.]

Hello AP

You also make a very good point but it would be surprising, given the fame and notoriety of the Ripper case, that there not any books that at the least mentioned the case in the decades following 1888, wouldn't it? I believe I am correct in saying there were no books solely about the case until the Leonard Matters book was published in 1929, over 40 years after the Autumn of Terror. Hmmmmmm?

Chris

[Natalie Severn]

'Nefarious purpose'? C'mon A.P., where's the evidence for that? As for being ego-driven over-inflated wind-bags, the same could presumably be said of everyone who writes a memoir, or, I guess writes pretty much anything intended for public cosumption, including blogs and contributions to message boards and so on - these people must be hugely ego-centric to assume that anyone's interested in their thoughts and opinions and experiences, mustn't they?

Sheesh, these people wrote their memoirs, one tiny bit of which referenced an old and cold caseand made some statements of a kind which were not then and have not since been unusual or exceptional, and you've got 'em up before the Inquisition!

The difference,though Paul,is that Anderson and Macnaghten each would have had quite some sales boost from their individual " bags of wind" since they both could float an " I copped Jack" caption over it !.......and its a very big difference writing a lucrative and slightly lurid memoir from contributing on a message board!
But of course a defenceless and mentally ill young Jewish man named Kosminski
and a young man named Druitt ,who committed suicide, were "criminalised'---they were accused [-actually in Kosminski"s case and "as good as" in Druitt"s case], without being able to stand trial ,of being "serial killers"!what else is one to call that? "Demonised"---is that any more precise? Lets not forget that Anderson made some pretty grotesque statements about this "diabolical creature" he said was JtR-----not exactly what most of us would want printed for our epitaph!


Best


Natalie

.....and Paul, you know the case has never ever gone "cold"-not since the Autumn of 1888!

[Natalie Severn]

Agreed, Natalie, seeing as you put it so eloquently.
They were all over-inflated bags of wind each serving their own nefarious purpose and gigantic egos.

---indeed AP....and both always mindful to keep a watchful eye on the market-and boy could JtR assist in the area of profit margins!

[Stan Russo]

Natalie,

Remember though, Anderson never named Kosminski and MacNaghten never publicly named Druitt. The reason why Kosminski is widely considered as Anderson's suspect is due to both the MacNaghten Memoranda and the Swanson Marginalia.

From the tone of both, it would appear that both Swanson and MacNaghten were told of Kosminski by Anderson, rather than having been a first hand particpant in any identification, which is where I believe that most researchers get it wrong and fail to understand the consequences of that.

[Natalie Severn]

Natalie,

Remember though, Anderson never named Kosminski and MacNaghten never publicly named Druitt. The reason why Kosminski is widely considered as Anderson's suspect is due to both the MacNaghten Memoranda and the Swanson Marginalia.

From the tone of both, it would appear that both Swanson and MacNaghten were told of Kosminski by Anderson, rather than having been a first hand particpant in any identification, which is where I believe that most researchers get it wrong and fail to understand the consequences of that.

Fair enough Stan,but it was a bit like dangling a carrot---once their readers got the scent they must have been off in hot pursuit to play the names game!
And Abberline"s repost to both claims is spoken through gritted teeth!He clearly was having none of it, believing it to be a lot of nonsense.
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

That's it, Natalie, they were working for the Yankee dollar, whether as private detectives or self publicists.
They all became prostitutes.
Funny that.

[Natalie Severn]

.... a truer word you never spake AP!

[Stan Russo]

I think what's more important is the step further.

[Paul]

Hi Chris,
You also make a very good point but it would be surprising, given the fame and notoriety of the Ripper case, that there not any books that at the least mentioned the case in the decades following 1888, wouldn't it?

1888 - 1899 was an eleven year period. 1900 - 1926 is over twice as long. It was also a period during which the case became sufficiently old to be looked at historically and, of course, during that time a number of those involved wrote their memoirs, so the figures don't necessarily reveal an increased publishing interest in Jack the Ripper. Some of the books were written by Edwin Brough, George R Sims (2), Anderson (3), Major Smith, L. Forbes Winslow, John Churton Collins, Macnaghten, Henrietta Barnett, Lincoln Springfield, John Brookes, Charles Kingston... One must also look at the types of mention the Ripper case received in those books, Brough wrote about it in relation to his bloodhounds, Collins told an anecdote about a Crimes Club trip around the murder sites with Conan Doyle, Barnett wrote about the social conditions, Brookes made a reference to Macnaghten's suspect, Kingston referred to Monro... and so on. And virtually all these books were by or about the justice system in one way or another and were largely anecdotal.

This doesn't suggest that there was an upsurge of interest in the case by publishers or that publishers were actively looking to publish material about Jack the Ripper. Rather, it confirms your suggestion that those who were around at the time of the crimes were writing memoirs that contained brief and anecdotal references to the case.

Hi Natalie,
The difference,though Paul,is that Anderson and Macnaghten each would have had quite some sales boost from their individual " bags of wind" since they both could float an " I copped Jack" caption over it !.......and its a very big difference writing a lucrative and slightly lurid memoir from contributing on a message board! .....and Paul, you know the case has never ever gone "cold"-not since the Autumn of 1888!

I don't think we can have it both ways: claiming that mentioning the Ripper case was a 'sales boost', yet at the same time having to acknowledge that there was very little nterest taken in his revelations. And where's the evidence that mentioning the Ripper was a sales boost anyway?

And the lack of interest taken in Anderson's revelations would suggest that the case had gone cold by 1910.

On top of which Anderson did not play the great 'I am', 'I Caught the Ripper' role. He actually made no claim to having been responsible at all for the arrest, identification, release or anything else associated with the suspect. What he was anxious to do was to refute criticism of the Police by people who compared the British Police to the French Police; Anderson pointed out that the French police could arrest and detain a suspect as long as they liked whilst they built up a case against him, whereas the British police were allowed only to hold on to a suspect for a specific period of time before either charging him or releasing him. This meant that the police often knew who had committed a crime but were unable to prove it. Now, that is a claim to which you apparently object, but it remains true today as much as it was back in 1888. But like it or not it was a reassurance that Anderson gave, pointing out that not even the Jack the Ripper murders were unsolved.

[Paul]

From the tone of both, it would appear that both Swanson and MacNaghten were told of Kosminski by Anderson, rather than having been a first hand particpant in any identification, which is where I believe that most researchers get it wrong and fail to understand the consequences of that.

I'm not sure that researchers go wrong about that, Stan. It's an angle that has to be seriously considered, but at the same time Macnaghten seems under-informed (perhaps knowing nothing of the eye-witness identification) and it's difficult to believe that Swanson, who had overall charge of the Ripper investigation, wouldn't have personally attended the identification (assuming that either Anderson or Swanson were in personal attendance, which some would argue they wouldn't have been).

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris,


1888 - 1899 was an eleven year period. 1900 - 1926 is over twice as long. It was also a period during which the case became sufficiently old to be looked at historically and, of course, during that time a number of those involved wrote their memoirs, so the figures don't necessarily reveal an increased publishing interest in Jack the Ripper. Some of the books were written by Edwin Brough, George R Sims (2), Anderson (3), Major Smith, L. Forbes Winslow, John Churton Collins, Macnaghten, Henrietta Barnett, Lincoln Springfield, John Brookes, Charles Kingston... One must also look at the types of mention the Ripper case received in those books, Brough wrote about it in relation to his bloodhounds, Collins told an anecdote about a Crimes Club trip around the murder sites with Conan Doyle, Barnett wrote about the social conditions, Brookes made a reference to Macnaghten's suspect, Kingston referred to Monro... and so on. And virtually all these books were by or about the justice system in one way or another and were largely anecdotal.

This doesn't suggest that there was an upsurge of interest in the case by publishers or that publishers were actively looking to publish material about Jack the Ripper. Rather, it confirms your suggestion that those who were around at the time of the crimes were writing memoirs that contained brief and anecdotal references to the case.

Hi Natalie,


I don't think we can have it both ways: claiming that mentioning the Ripper case was a 'sales boost', yet at the same time having to acknowledge that there was very little nterest taken in his revelations. And where's the evidence that mentioning the Ripper was a sales boost anyway?

And the lack of interest taken in Anderson's revelations would suggest that the case had gone cold by 1910.

On top of which Anderson did not play the great 'I am', 'I Caught the Ripper' role. He actually made no claim to having been responsible at all for the arrest, identification, release or anything else associated with the suspect. What he was anxious to do was to refute criticism of the Police by people who compared the British Police to the French Police; Anderson pointed out that the French police could arrest and detain a suspect as long as they liked whilst they built up a case against him, whereas the British police were allowed only to hold on to a suspect for a specific period of time before either charging him or releasing him. This meant that the police often knew who had committed a crime but were unable to prove it. Now, that is a claim to which you apparently object, but it remains true today as much as it was back in 1888. But like it or not it was a reassurance that Anderson gave, pointing out that not even the Jack the Ripper murders were unsolved.

Thank you, Paul. I agree with you that at the time Anderson's opinion created little sensation except with interested parties such as Major Smith or Chief Rabbi Adler. It is only today, with the upsurge of general interest in the Ripper case that there wasn't in 1900-1910 or for decades afterward, that we are parsing every word that Anderson or Macnaghten wrote and seeing implications in their writings that may not have been intended.

Chris

[Natalie Severn]

Paul,I will return to this in more detail but surely if Anderson ,as you say ,was simply trying to "reassure the public about the work of the POLICE Detectives" he meant the work they did at the time-1888 ie they knew he was a low class Polish Jew from the time of the "house to house inquiry". Surely he needed to obtain the endorsement of Scotland Yard and of Abberline at the very least for goodness sake---that hardworking ,hands on ,there at the time detective-as well as Walter Dew, Major Smith and a host of other doubting Thomases?

As it was he seems to have sailed into publication, blissfully unaware of the gasps of incredulity from all and sundry when his next load of "Matilda like" porkies hit the fan!
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

Paul,

Well that's the major issue with Anderson, which I feel most do not understand.

Let's say that Swanson was at the 'alleged' witness identification and the suspect was Kosminski for one moment. Then there becomes no reason for him to scribble that Kosminski was the suspect in his own copy of Anderson's memoirs. The whole memory lapsing thing does not hold water. If someone was at an identification of JTR, where a suspect was identified, they would remember it. All signs point to Swanson having not been at the 'alleged' witness ID, which is why the need to write down that Kosminski was the suspect, because the knowledge was second hand.

Therefore, you have Swanson backing up Anderson by the actions of Anderson telling Swanson that it happened, rather than actually being there. In essence, Anderson is backing up Anderson, which is why, coupled with the other numerous errors regarding the ID, the ID is so hard to take as actually happening.

With regards to MacNaghten, working from his original memo, which we know of from Gerald Melville Donner, his grandson, the three suspects changed from Druitt (whose name he gets wrong), 'Leather Apron' and Cutbush/Colicott to Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog. One has to ask where he got the name Kosminski from? The answer seems to be from Anderson, or from Swanson, who got it from Anderson.

Now you have a second independant policeman backing up Anderson in the same way that the first one did, through the words of Anderson.

In the Swanson Marginalia, we know that MacNaghten bothered Anderson about a threatening letter and we also know that MacNaghten connected JTR to an attempt on Balfour's life.

If there were some Fenain connection to the JTR murders, as we know a document did exist because Douglas Browne and Ralph Strauss verified that in 1956, whether it was a fake connection or a real one, Anderson, as a loyal to the Crown soldier, would have wanted to divert attention away from it. This presents the perfect opportunity to prewsent Kosminski to MacNaghten and may actually be where this 'alleged' ID derived from.

In 1890, we know that MacNaghten was almost transferred out of the CID, presumably for bothering Anderson, as Swanson has attested to. All of a sudden, he is back in their good graces, he has his original erroneous memo of three JTR suspects and the Kosminski ID takes place.

Why was MacNaghten chosen to write the 1894 memo clearing Cutbush? This has always been an important question. If his original memo mentioned Cutbush as one of three possible suspects, which Donner attested to, he would be the perfect person to refute Cutbush's guilt in 1894, only if someone had given his information on a better suspect to substitute in for Cutbush as one of the three. This is where Anderson's suspect comes in and this is where I believe that the Seaside Home ID originated from, out of thin air to placate an annoying policeman who was asking too many questions about a possible Fenian connection to the JTR murders.

I could be wrong, but all the pieces fit nicely, without adulterating any of them.

I'm sure others will disagree but I would only ask that those who disagree use information from the case to back up their arguments, as I just have.

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Paul & Chris
though I do think you play down the role that involvement - of any nature or kind - with the Whitechapel Murders would be the lynch pin that would clinch any publication deal from a retired officer of the law or land.
Especially in the years that I mention, as this was the exact period when all these old fossils were retired and reached for their dreaded pens.
The mere fact of association with the 'greatest criminal mystery of the century' - still unsolved - would be more than enough to secure a publishing deal; as readers would be keen to read the thoughts of those who thought they knew.
It was the start of a dreadful trend, wasn't it?

And I'm not saying that any of the volumes published in those years had the Whitechapel Murders as subject, oh no, it was enough to have a brief mention inside and on the cover that the worthy had some scant involvement with the crime. As we have seen from the press cutting in the New York Times that I posted from 1913, it was even then transatlantic news when an ex-cop belched Jack the Ripper.
So let's be kosher with one another.

[Paul]

Paul,I will return to this in more detail but surely if Anderson ,as you say ,was simply trying to "reassure the public about the work of the POLICE Detectives" he meant the work they did at the time-1888 ie they knew he was a low class Polish Jew from the time of the "house to house inquiry". Surely he needed to obtain the endorsement of Scotland Yard and of Abberline at the very least for goodness sake---that hardworking ,hands on ,there at the time detective-as well as Walter Dew, Major Smith and a host of other doubting Thomases?

As it was he seems to have sailed into publication, blissfully unaware of the gasps of incredulity from all and sundry when his next load of "Matilda like" porkies hit the fan!
Natalie

Sorry Natalie, but I’m not really sure what you mean about Anderson needing the endorsement of Scotland Yard and Abberline. Are you suggesting that the conclusion that the murderer was a Polish Jew was reached by Anderson alone and that Abberline and other officers at Scotland Yard knew nothing of it?

What 'gasps of incredulity' was there from anyone, let alone all and sundry? And you have yet to demonstrate that any porkies had hit any fan, so can we at least try to get some evidence for these claims.

[Paul]

Thanks Paul & Chris
though I do think you play down the role that involvement - of any nature or kind - with the Whitechapel Murders would be the lynch pin that would clinch any publication deal from a retired officer of the law or land.

Sorry A.P., but this is pure speculation on your part. Let's see the evidence for supposing that the murders played any part whatsoever in securing a publication deal - as if Anderson, quite a prolific writer anyway - needed any such bargaining chip. Policemen back then were celebrities and needed no more than being a senior policeman to get a book deal than Johnny Depp would need more than being who he is to get one today.

Especially in the years that I mention, as this was the exact period when all these old fossils were retired and reached for their dreaded pens. The mere fact of association with the 'greatest criminal mystery of the century' - still unsolved - would be more than enough to secure a publishing deal; as readers would be keen to read the thoughts of those who thought they knew.

Well, thee vidence in Anderson's case appears to be that nobody real gave a damn, so it's questionable that readers were keen to read what Anderson thought about the Whitechapel murders and even more questionable that anyone saw the crimes as a selling tool.

And I'm not saying that any of the volumes published in those years had the Whitechapel Murders as subject, oh no, it was enough to have a brief mention inside and on the cover that the worthy had some scant involvement with the crime. As we have seen from the press cutting in the New York Times that I posted from 1913, it was even then transatlantic news when an ex-cop belched Jack the Ripper.
So let's be kosher with one another.

Well, Macnaghten's retirement got some press coverage and he gave an interview to the Daily Mail which got picked up in the States, and if you think that suggests that the Ripper was a selling tool, so be it. I don't. And did books back then have a cover or an inside cover flap? If not, where was this selling done?

[Paul]

Stan,
There's a lot in your post Stan, including a fair few assumptions. For example, it's an assumption that Swanson wrote the marginalia as an aide to his memory. I incline to the opinion that he wrote simply to expand on what Anderson said, and this seems supported by other marginalia in Anderson’s book and in other books Swanson owned.

We don't know that the Donner document ever existed.

Browne did not verify the existence of the Fenian document, he is the source that such a document existed, but what he saw and if he correctly interpreted it is unknown, and we don’t know from what date it came. It seems that if it did not relate to Druitt in some way then it was a theory supplanted by Druitt.

Who says MacNaghten was chosen to write the 1894? Why wasn't it simply his job to write it?

Donner did not attest to the document mentioning Cutbush or to anything else. What you are referring to is a document Philip Loftus recalled having seen some 20 years earlier. What he saw and what it contained is unknown, as is whether or not his memory of it was contaminated by reading Tom Cullen's book.

I'd feel happier if your theory was based on known documents.

Cheers
Paul

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul,
While I believe they had ALL heard Anderson at it and most had sat on their hands with clenched teeth ,we have some concrete evidence that Abberline rebutted it most strongly viz
March 1903
interview given by ex Inspector Abberline to
Pall Mall Gazette

"You must understand that WE have never believed all those stories about the Ripper being dead ,or that he was a lunatic,or anything of that kind"

and a week later-even more vehemently
"You can state most emphatically that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago"

and he added-

"I know that it has been stated in several quarters ,that "Jack the Ripper" was a man who died in a lunatic asylum, a few years ago,but there is nothing of a tangible nature to support such a theory."
Abberline then produced documentary evidence to show the case had never been solved and concluded
"No the identity of the diabolical individual has yet to be established,not withstanding the people who produced these rumours and who pretend to know the state of the official mind."

from the Pall Mall Gazette of 24th and 30th March 1903

[A.P. Wolf]

Surely Paul, you did mean to say that 'retired' policemen were celebrities?
A serving policeman was never a 'celebrity'.

[Natalie Severn]

Paul,

Sir Henry Smith was so utterly flabbergasted when he read Sir Roberts serialised memoirs that he sent out this damning response:

To Anderson"s claim that the East End Jews had "protected the murderer as one of their own" he denounced it as a "reckless accusation" adding "Surely Sir Robert CANNOT believe that the Jews were entering into this conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice,there was noone amongst them with sufficient knowledge of the criminal law to warn them of the risks they were taking'[in those days murder accessory caseswere liable to penal servitude for life].

Sir Henry then recommended that Sir Robert read Bleak House and the Bible!

...and as you must know he goes on to talk of the writing on the wall of Belshazzars feast etc etc

Monro ofcourse was thoroughly p**sed off with Anderson during his 1910 outburst when he dragged his name into the business over the porkies Anderson had written for The Times about Parnell.Monro may actually have been fed up with Anderson when he quit in 1890,saying he couldnt go on " doing wrong"-----I note there is no such contrition evident from Anderson .....but Monro quit and his close friend Macnaghten went into freeze mode.Something very uncomfortable was obviously going on........

Then there was Walter Dew-also there at the time------"no one ever knew the Ripper"s identity......"
Thomas Arnold, interviewed on his retirement as Superintendent of "H"division in 1893 spoke of the Whitechapel murders as "unsolved".

And ofcourse Littlechild----in 1913 he wrote "Anderson only THOUGHT he knew"----

Edmund Reid too dismissed Macnaghten"s famous draft account of the "three suspects "----when it was served up in a new dish again in 1903 by Griffiths, as "full of inaccuracies" .Reid served in "H" division as Head of CID from 1887 -1896 - therefore he was in post when Frances Coles was murdered and he believed she was a Ripper victim.Kosminski was in Colney Hatch during that time.

By disassociating themselves they make it clear that they believed Anderson"s claim a load of twaddle and hogwash ---and even worse in Sir Henry Smith"s view!

Best

Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

So all in all, Natalie, it was a very lively period which saw the Whitechapel Murders very much in the vogue.
Which famous Lord at litigation in 1913 declared that his father was like 'Jack the Ripper'?
And did not the British government accuse the German government of acting like 'Jack the Ripper' in the very same year?
Buried but not dead.

[Natalie Severn]

----and it has been "in vogue" ever since AP------and dont you seriously think that had they known the identity of the Ripper we would have known too....they would have loved nothing more than being able to say they knew his identity.But unlike Anderson most actually did know their right hand from their left ---most probably.........

[Stan Russo]

Paul,

It is incredibly tough to debate topics on message boards, but let's give it a chance, step by step.

Let's discuss the naming of Kosminski in the Swanson Marginalia.

First, I agree with you that the memory aide is not a sufficient answer, which is why I said so in my original post. I do not believe it was a memory aide.

That still does not change the fact that, if you believe Swanson was at this 'alleged' witness/suspect ID, he then wrote down the name of a suspect he personally witnessed having been identified as JTR. What could possibly be the purpose of that?

You state that it was to simply to expand upon what Anderson had written - however, since this was his own personal copy, which remained hidden from the public until 1987, what would the purpose of scribbling an expansion of what Anderson wrote in a book that only he saw, if he was in attendance at the ID?

It makes absolutely no sense for someone to do that, therefore logic would dictate that Swanson must not have been at the witness/suspect ID and was given the suspect's name by someone, that someone having been Anderson.

This is not merely an assumption but rather a logical deduction from an analysis of the information at hand.

The opposite, however, would be that Swanson was actually at the witness/suspect ID to see JTR identified as Aaron Kosminski, yet for some reason still decided to scribble the actual name of the suspect he was a personal witness to having been identified as JTR, in a book that no one else would see, but definately not as a memory aide.

I understand that sometimes people make leaps of faith to help their theory, but in all honesty, this is not a leap of faith - this is taking bits of information we know about the case and trying to make sense out of them.

Your thoughts?

[Paul]

Surely Paul, you did mean to say that 'retired' policemen were celebrities?
A serving policeman was never a 'celebrity'.

I'm afraid they were, of a sort, which is why they were interviewed, had their movements reported in the newspapers (i.e., that Sir Charles Warren was holidaying in the South of France) and so on.

[Paul]

Hi Paul,
While I believe they had ALL heard Anderson at it and most had sat on their hands with clenched teeth ,we have some concrete evidence that Abberline rebutted it most strongly viz
March 1903
interview given by ex Inspector Abberline to
Pall Mall Gazette

"You must understand that WE have never believed all those stories about the Ripper being dead ,or that he was a lunatic,or anything of that kind"

and a week later-even more vehemently
"You can state most emphatically that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago"

and he added-

"I know that it has been stated in several quarters ,that "Jack the Ripper" was a man who died in a lunatic asylum, a few years ago,but there is nothing of a tangible nature to support such a theory."
Abberline then produced documentary evidence to show the case had never been solved and concluded
"No the identity of the diabolical individual has yet to be established,not withstanding the people who produced these rumours and who pretend to know the state of the official mind."

from the Pall Mall Gazette of 24th and 30th March 1903

Hi Natalie,
Your assumption here is that Abberline was referring to Anderson's suspect, but Aaron Kosminski, if correctly identified as Anderson’s suspect, did not die in an asylum a few years before 1903, and even if one allows that Abberline meant ‘confined in’ instead of ‘died in’ then he could have been referring to any one of a number of individuals confined to an asylum who received press attention prior to 1903:- Cutbush (1894), the Gull/Thomas Mason story (1895), Forbes Winslow’s suspect (1895), for example.

[Paul]

Paul,

Sir Henry Smith was so utterly flabbergasted when he read Sir Roberts serialised memoirs that he sent out this damning response:

To Anderson"s claim that the East End Jews had "protected the murderer as one of their own" he denounced it as a "reckless accusation" adding "Surely Sir Robert CANNOT believe that the Jews were entering into this conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice,there was noone amongst them with sufficient knowledge of the criminal law to warn them of the risks they were taking'[in those days murder accessory caseswere liable to penal servitude for life].

Sir Henry then recommended that Sir Robert read Bleak House and the Bible!

...and as you must know he goes on to talk of the writing on the wall of Belshazzars feast etc etc

Monro ofcourse was thoroughly p**sed off with Anderson during his 1910 outburst when he dragged his name into the business over the porkies Anderson had written for The Times about Parnell.Monro may actually have been fed up with Anderson when he quit in 1890,saying he couldnt go on " doing wrong"-----I note there is no such contrition evident from Anderson .....but Monro quit and his close friend Macnaghten went into freeze mode.Something very uncomfortable was obviously going on........

Then there was Walter Dew-also there at the time------"no one ever knew the Ripper"s identity......"
Thomas Arnold, interviewed on his retirement as Superintendent of "H"division in 1893 spoke of the Whitechapel murders as "unsolved".

And ofcourse Littlechild----in 1913 he wrote "Anderson only THOUGHT he knew"----

Edmund Reid too dismissed Macnaghten"s famous draft account of the "three suspects "----when it was served up in a new dish again in 1903 by Griffiths, as "full of inaccuracies" .Reid served in "H" division as Head of CID from 1887 -1896 - therefore he was in post when Frances Coles was murdered and he believed she was a Ripper victim.Kosminski was in Colney Hatch during that time.

By disassociating themselves they make it clear that they believed Anderson"s claim a load of twaddle and hogwash ---and even worse in Sir Henry Smith"s view!

Best

Natalie

Yes, assuming these men actually knew what Anderson knew. Smith, of course, misunderstood what Andrson had written.

[Paul]

Paul,

It is incredibly tough to debate topics on message boards, but let's give it a chance, step by step.

Let's discuss the naming of Kosminski in the Swanson Marginalia.

First, I agree with you that the memory aide is not a sufficient answer, which is why I said so in my original post. I do not believe it was a memory aide.

That still does not change the fact that, if you believe Swanson was at this 'alleged' witness/suspect ID, he then wrote down the name of a suspect he personally witnessed having been identified as JTR. What could possibly be the purpose of that?

You state that it was to simply to expand upon what Anderson had written - however, since this was his own personal copy, which remained hidden from the public until 1987, what would the purpose of scribbling an expansion of what Anderson wrote in a book that only he saw, if he was in attendance at the ID?

It makes absolutely no sense for someone to do that, therefore logic would dictate that Swanson must not have been at the witness/suspect ID and was given the suspect's name by someone, that someone having been Anderson.

This is not merely an assumption but rather a logical deduction from an analysis of the information at hand.

The opposite, however, would be that Swanson was actually at the witness/suspect ID to see JTR identified as Aaron Kosminski, yet for some reason still decided to scribble the actual name of the suspect he was a personal witness to having been identified as JTR, in a book that no one else would see, but definately not as a memory aide.

I understand that sometimes people make leaps of faith to help their theory, but in all honesty, this is not a leap of faith - this is taking bits of information we know about the case and trying to make sense out of them.

Your thoughts?

Stan,
Yes it is very difficult to debate topics on a message board and I’m afraid that in this case I’m increasingly confused by the argument you appear to be making here. You seem to be suggesting that if Swanson had attended the identification then he would not have noted down Kosminski’s name, and that noting it down therefore means that he was not present at the identification and received the information from elsewhere, presumably Anderson.

It don’t follow this reasoning at all. I have bought second-hand books and borrowed library books containing marginal notes and sometimes I’ve even made some marginal notes myself. People do this for all sorts of reasons, sometimes to highlight a passage of interest, at others as an aide to memory, but also because they disagree with what the author has written, or to expand on what the author has written from personal knowledge and experience or what they’ve read elsewhere. I find nothing in the least bit odd about Swanson writing the name of the suspect in the margins of the book, and in fact find it far more likely that he would have done so if he’d attended the identification and was expanding from personal experience or knowledge than if he was merely repeating information from the source he was annotating.

Cheers
Paul

[Natalie Severn]

Yes, assuming these men actually knew what Anderson knew. Smith, of course, misunderstood what Andrson had written.

Hi Paul,
Well I can well understand Sir Henry Smith"s confusion over what must have seemed to him a rather untoward if not somewhat "barking" assertion by Anderson,especially since there is no mention of any of this stuff in any of the official police files Major Smith would have legitimately had sight of!
I know many men ,over 100- were taken into Scotland Yard to have their collars felt just for carrying "black bags" etc-but unlike all this "extra-curricular" stuff by Anderson- they all happen to be mentioned in the files -either the Scotland Yard files or the Home Office ones-whereas there is no mention of a single " Kosminski " an Aaron or any other - in any of them which is very odd if this man was known for a "definitely ascertainable fact" , to have been "Jack the Ripper"!

Moeover whatever Sir Henry Smith misunderstood about certain parts of the Anderson " innuendoes",he appears to have very well understood the implications regarding the "low class Polish Jew" Anderson was referring to-as do most people when they read it - and he understood perfectly the implications for the Jewish community viz that Anderson was as good as accusing them of " aiding and abetting" in these Whitechapel murders.
Moreover Paul, Macnaghten "named" Kosminski,and also referred to him as "a Polish Jew" , as the person he would suspect after Druitt and in preference to the middle class English medical student,Thomas Cutbush -so I dont think there can be much doubt about it being a "polish Jew named Kosminski".
Best
Natalie

[How Brown]

Stan:

Well stated position on the issue of Swanson & the marginalia. With posts like that, its NOT incredibly tough to debate on message boards. Well done,Stosh.

Mr. B, sor...

Allow me to ask you this....if Anderson had no intention of revealing the name or the identity of the suspect in Hove immediately following the identification....and certainly none later on,since he explains why he didn't or wouldn't.....then wouldn't Swanson's marginalia be in defiance or at least contrary to the aim of all of what Anderson expressed later on....first with the matter of factly OR the casual reference to ( Depending on how one visualizes this, I suppose, or what side of the SRA issue you rest ) the "low class suspect" and the expressed basis of his ( SRA's ) refusal to mention his name...that of it serving no good or gain ?

I understand completely what Stan is alluding to here.

This Hove matter was supposed to be kept secret between the participants (Anderson & whomever was in attendence that day ), since it served no good or gain, according to Anderson, to reveal the identity of someone that would not be competent enough to stand trial and/or be hung for the crimes....a fact that has never been established since all the witness did was ostensibly identify a man he merely saw in the vicinity of a murder 3 years after the fact and not in the act of committing any crime and in particular,murder.

Swanson may have, as you infer or suggest, simply corroborated what Anderson said with his scribbling...but to what good or aim ? Is this to suggest that he left that message there for future consideration ?

[Paul]

Well I can well understand Sir Henry Smith"s confusion over what must have seemed to him a rather untoward if not somewhat "barking" assertion by Anderson,especially since there is no mention of any of this stuff in any of the official police files Major Smith would have legitimately had sight of!

I know many men ,over 100- were taken into Scotland Yard to have their collars felt just for carrying "black bags" etc-but unlike all this "extra-curricular" stuff by Anderson- they all happen to be mentioned in the files -either the Scotland Yard files or the Home Office ones-whereas there is no mention of a single " Kosminski " an Aaron or any other - in any of them which is very odd if this man was known for a "definitely ascertainable fact" , to have been "Jack the Ripper"!

I don't want to appear pedantic here, Natalie, but the City Police files were destroyed in WWII and we have no ida what Major Smith may or may not have seen in them. Secondly, all the people questioned by the police are not mentioned in the surviving files, which don't, for example. refer to Druitt or Ostrog or Tumblety.

Moeover whatever Sir Henry Smith misunderstood about certain parts of the Anderson " innuendoes", he appears to have very well understood the implications regarding the "low class Polish Jew" Anderson was referring to-as do most people when they read it - and he understood perfectly the implications for the Jewish community viz that Anderson was as good as accusing them of " aiding and abetting" in these Whitechapel murders.

But Anderson did not accuse them of aiding and abetting did he?

[Stan Russo]

Paul,

I see you are in the middle of about three to four conversations, but I would like to respond with a counter explanation to your theory - just give me the heads up to do so.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul,
It is my understanding that Anderson was accusing "his people" of aiding and abetting, when he said that the "low class Polish Jew was " a sexual maniac of a virulant type ...living in the immediate vicinity of the murders;and that if he was not living absolutely alone,his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice.......the conclusion we came to [ie after the house to house searches] was that he and his people were low class Jews,for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile Justice".
To my way of thinking---and apparently to Sir Henry Smith"s, Anderson is here suggesting that Kosminski"s "people",either knowing him to be "Jack the Ripper" or guessing him to be, were not willing to have him face the British justice system.
As I understand it, if you know someone to be guilty of a crime,especially such a serious one as serial murder, then in British justice you are obliged to report it otherwise you are an "accessory" to that crime-presumably because you are seen to have "helped " the criminal-or have done nothing to have prevented it or to prevent further such crimes -which would be what happened.
Best

Natalie

[Mags]

As to why Swanson scribbled--he might have done it simply as a means of 'talking" to Anderson and engaging in furthering the conversationan.

I can easily imagine him doing so ( as I have myself) "yeah, that's right and furthermore...)."

[Paul]

Hi Paul,
It is my understanding that Anderson was accusing "his people" of aiding and abetting, when he said that the "low class Polish Jew was " a sexual maniac of a virulant type ...living in the immediate vicinity of the murders;and that if he was not living absolutely alone,his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice.......the conclusion we came to [ie after the house to house searches] was that he and his people were low class Jews,for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile Justice".
To my way of thinking---and apparently to Sir Henry Smith"s, Anderson is here suggesting that Kosminski"s "people",either knowing him to be "Jack the Ripper" or guessing him to be, were not willing to have him face the British justice system.
As I understand it, if you know someone to be guilty of a crime,especially such a serious one as serial murder, then in British justice you are obliged to report it otherwise you are an "accessory" to that crime-presumably because you are seen to have "helped " the criminal-or have done nothing to have prevented it or to prevent further such crimes -which would be what happened.
Best

Natalie

Hi Natalie,
The passage in Blackwoods' reads:

'One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice. And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.'

Now, this paragraph is badly costructed and leaves us to infer quite a lot. For example, we are not told why the police concluded that the murderer either lived alone or with people who knew he was guilty and were protecting him. We are instead left to infei that it was believed that the murderer was bloodstained and that therefore either he was able to get rid of his bloodstains unobserved or, if he lived with people, they must have seen the bloodstains, had inevitable suspicions and self-evidently did not communicate them to the police.

We'll retrn to this in a moment. What Anderson begins by telling us is that pretty much from the kick off the police had concluded that the murderer was (a) a sexual maniac, (b) lived in the murder locality, and (c) lived alone or with people. These were pretty obvious conclusions, as Anderson acknowledges. Anderson then tells us that during a house-to-house inquiry every man who lived alone was specially investigated. This returns us to inferences because we are left once again to infer from the following sentence that the hose-to-house investigation cleared or at least produced no evidence against men living alone.

Now we come to an important bit. Because the police had apparently cleared all men in the district who lived alone, the nly remaining option was that he lived with people who must have seen the bloodstains and not communicated their inevitable suspicions to the police. This suggested that the murderer was a low-class Jew because, we are told, low-class Jews did not surrender their own to the authorities.

What's important here is that the suspect being a low-class Jew was not one of the conclusions that it didn't take a Sherlock Holmes to discover. It was a conclusion reached after an investigation and was based on an alleged peculiar trait of low-class Jews.

Now, we infer from this that the murderer's people protected him, but that is not what Anderson says and it isn't necessarilly what he meant. All he may have meant was that the police had reached certain conclusions - that the murderer was (a) was a sexual maniac, (b) lived in the murder locality, and (c) was a low-class Jew - all of which turned out to be true.

A final point, Anderson says that the house-to-house investigation took place during his absence abroad. It is possible, therefore, that the conclusions reached therefrom were also reached during Anderson's absence, the word 'we' in the cited paragraph meaning the Metropolitan Police, not necessarilly including Anderson. Alternatively, the 'we' could mean Anderson and others, such as Swanson and Abberline. The conclusion that the murderer was a Polish Jew and the reasons on which that conclusion were based may therefore not even have been Andersons.

So Anderson was not necessarily accusing anyone of protecting the murderer, he may only have been that suspicion fell on low-class Jews for specific reasons.

[Paul]

Stan:

Well stated position on the issue of Swanson & the marginalia. With posts like that, its NOT incredibly tough to debate on message boards. Well done,Stosh.

Mr. B, sor...

Allow me to ask you this....if Anderson had no intention of revealing the name or the identity of the suspect in Hove immediately following the identification....and certainly none later on,since he explains why he didn't or wouldn't.....then wouldn't Swanson's marginalia be in defiance or at least contrary to the aim of all of what Anderson expressed later on....first with the matter of factly OR the casual reference to ( Depending on how one visualizes this, I suppose, or what side of the SRA issue you rest ) the "low class suspect" and the expressed basis of his ( SRA's ) refusal to mention his name...that of it serving no good or gain ?

I understand completely what Stan is alluding to here.

This Hove matter was supposed to be kept secret between the participants (Anderson & whomever was in attendence that day ), since it served no good or gain, according to Anderson, to reveal the identity of someone that would not be competent enough to stand trial and/or be hung for the crimes....a fact that has never been established since all the witness did was ostensibly identify a man he merely saw in the vicinity of a murder 3 years after the fact and not in the act of committing any crime and in particular,murder.

Swanson may have, as you infer or suggest, simply corroborated what Anderson said with his scribbling...but to what good or aim ? Is this to suggest that he left that message there for future consideration ?

Hi Howard,
We are talking about two different issues here. What Anderson intended at the time of the identification and what Anderson was prepared to do in his book. It is abundantly clear that he hoped to bring charges against the suspect at the time of the investigation – that’s why the witness was so important; it was clearly his refusal to give evidence which caused a delay with led to the suspect being released and quickly committed by his family.

As for the article, Anderson could not name a suspect in an article for public consumption. It wasn’t that he refused to do so or that he had no intention of doing so. It was that he couldn’t do so. Theorising and speculation among policemen in private documents was and is common, however, and it is to protect those who are the subject of such speculation that the files are closed for 100-years. Naming the suspect in a personal book did not seriously breach legal or moral constraints any more than Littlechild mentioning Tumblety’s name in a private letter to a trusted recipient.

So, when it came to writing the name of the suspect, Anderson was constrained by the libel laws and by the fact that naming him would serve no useful purpose. When Swanson wrote for himself neither of those factors applied.

[Paul]

Paul,

I see you are in the middle of about three to four conversations, but I would like to respond with a counter explanation to your theory - just give me the heads up to do so.

Fire away!

[Stan Russo]

Paul,

From what I am gathering, of your opinion, you believe that Swanson was at the ID, and then merely wrote down the name of the suspect in his personal copy of Anderson's memoirs to expand upon what Anderson had written.

I think that covers it.

So taking that as a possible explanation, Swanson would have known who JTR was for almost 20 years and only then taken the time to write it down, for his own benefit?

Why I argue that this was the first time he wrote it down because there would be no need to continually write down the suspect's name if he had done so previously. I hope you can agree with me on that one. Swanson wouldn't have written the suspect's name down ten or twenty times in various books. What is the point of that, since we both agree that memory was not an issue.

What we have here is a policeman who knew the identity of JTR for almost 20 years, never told anyone about it, yet felt the need to reiterate it, to himself?

I just don't see how this makes any sense. People scribble things in books all the time, yet they are generally opinions on what they have read, not facts they are privy to. The argument against this is that Swanson, if he was at the ID, knew the name of the suspect but thought he'd tell himself again? It's not as if it was an insignificant piece of information. If that were the case, he had known it and remembered it for almost 20 years.

If he was there, he knew that Kosminski was JTR, just as certainly as Anderson did. He knew this as fact. The question then becomes why would he need to write the name down later?

I know that in most discussion two parties can agree to disagree, but I believe that since there are numerous inaccuracies, both within Anderson's writings and Swanson's scribblings, the logic of the situation dictates that Swanson was not at the 'alleged' witness ID.

Your thoughts?

[Natalie Severn]

You reason all this out so well Paul....and yet,I continue to be hugely puzzled by the all too clear rebuttals to his statements about Kosminski by Abberline, Dew, Arnold, Reid,Littlechild and ofcourse,very importantly, Sir Henry Smith who went so far as to lambaste his assertions. These were all men who had worked the case and who either were then or soon were to become very senior policemen indeed in Whitechapel or the City.
Why, for example, did no one else in the police force endorse his corker about the non- law abiding habits of Polish Jews?

In fact what the senior police did do during the following century was to contradict each other in print about the identity of Jack the Ripper.
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Well, Natalie, I see it as being a long corridor, and some run along throwing light switches on, whilst others run behind them turning those same light switches off... so as fast as you switch on they switch off.
You want light, to see what you are doing, they want dark, so nobody sees what they are doing.
As you open up, they close you down, and when the corridor is empty, they switch all the lights on and giggle.
Because nobody is there.

[Scott Nelson]

....and yet,I continue to be hugely puzzled by the all too clear rebuttals to his [Anderson's] statements about Kosminski by Abberline, Dew, Arnold, Reid,Littlechild and ofcourse,very importantly, Sir Henry Smith... what the senior police did do during the following century was to contradict each other in print about the identity of Jack the Ripper.
Natalie

None of these senior policemen mention "Kosminski". We can't even be sure that they were referring to Anderson's Polish Jew suspect, let alone that they were aware of Kosminski. My feeling is that Kosminski was known only to a few policemen, including Anderson and Swanson. Had the identification proceeded with the witness giving evidence, more policemen would have known the name, "Kosmiski."

[Natalie Severn]

Well AP---that certainly seems to be Jack"s legacy......
and whoever pesky Jack was,he loved those dark and deserted streets and needed them badly - and I am beginning to think he knew every police beat within and without the City ......and how to work them.
Now what sort of man would have been able to calculate all those beats all those risks,while holding the variables in mind too and keeping his nerve throughout,while doing what he did and in record time?
Best
Natalie

[Natalie Severn]

None of these senior policemen mention "Kosminski". We can't even be sure that they were referring to Anderson's Polish Jew suspect, let alone that they were aware of Kosminski. My feeling is that Kosminski was known only to a few policemen, including Anderson and Swanson. Had the identification proceeded with the witness giving evidence, more policemen would have known the name, "Kosmiski."

Thats possible Scott,but somehow Kosminski himself-the Leavesdon patient doesnt hack it for me.
Jack wouldnt have surrendered like that.He would, I believe, have fought tooth and nail had he been "caught"-and Houdini like would probably have slipped through the net! Very much enjoyed your article though and loved the visuals.....
Cheers
Natalie

[Scott Nelson]

Well thank you Nats,

But I wasn't saying that Kosminski was the Ripper and that he would have fought tooth and nail (to keep himself out of confinement, or from conviction??).

All I was trying to say is that the attempted identification with the witness & suspect, if it ever did take place, was probably so botched up - because the police expected, beforehand, that the witness would not only to id the suspect, but also give evidence against him - that the police could never go public with it - even to their colleagues after the witness refused (or couldn't?) go ahead and give the evidence, assuming there was any to give.

[Paul]

You reason all this out so well Paul....and yet,I continue to be hugely puzzled by the all too clear rebuttals to his statements about Kosminski by Abberline, Dew, Arnold, Reid,Littlechild and ofcourse,very importantly, Sir Henry Smith who went so far as to lambaste his assertions. These were all men who had worked the case and who either were then or soon were to become very senior policemen indeed in Whitechapel or the City.
Why, for example, did no one else in the police force endorse his corker about the non- law abiding habits of Polish Jews?

In fact what the senior police did do during the following century was to contradict each other in print about the identity of Jack the Ripper.
Natalie

Natalie,
I don’t know why other senior policemen didn’t support Anderson. That’s one of the big mysteries surrounding his statements. But if there was a suspect, an eye-witness and a positive eye-witness identification, and if Anderson genuinely believed that the suspect was Jack the Ripper, then all we can say is that they presumably didn’t know about it.

It’s odd, for example, that Major Smith didn’t out-and-out say that Anderson was talking through his backside, but criticised him for what he perceived as a his slur against the Jews, Reid, wo did say that he had read the claims by Anderson,Abberline, and others and laughed at them, seems to have been strangely under-informed, asserting that no body parts had been taken away by the murderer and expressing the opinion that Jack the Ripper picked up his victims in a pub, murdered them and woen up the next day having forgotten all about what he’s done. Littlechild had never heard of Druitt and his reference to Anderson was probably meant to be a reference to Macnaghten. And Macnaghten, who clearly did know about Kosminski, shows no knowledge of the positive eye-witness identification.

With a couple of other possible options, the basic choices are (1) that there was an identification as described and Anderson was right to conclude as he did (by which I mean that that Anderson based his conclusion on good, solid evidence and reasoning, not that the conclusion was correct), (2) that there was an identification as described but Anderson was not right to conclude as he did (i.e., he was anti-Semitic and his anti-Semitism biased him towards accepting evidence against a Jew that he’d have rejected had the suspect been a Gentile – which is why it is essential to collect evidence that he was anti-Semitic, and thus far none has been forthcoming), or (3) the whole story of the identification is a pack of lies (in which case we have a whole different collection of problems to consider).

So, if these men actually knew what Anderson’s theory was and rejected it then one has to ask why they didn’t say so outright – whilst Major Smith, for example, said he had no idea that Jack the Ripper was, but he didn’t accuse Anderson of making it up or exaggerating the facts or anything like that – and this leaves open the very ral possibility that they didn’t know about it. Almost impossible as some would have us believe that to have been the case.

[Paul]

Well thank you Nats,

But I wasn't saying that Kosminski was the Ripper and that he would have fought tooth and nail (to keep himself out of confinement, or from conviction??).

All I was trying to say is that the attempted identification with the witness & suspect, if it ever did take place, was probably so botched up - because the police expected, beforehand, that the witness would not only to id the suspect, but also give evidence against him - that the police could never go public with it - even to their colleagues after the witness refused (or couldn't?) go ahead and give the evidence, assuming there was any to give.

That Aaron Kosminski appears to have been passive in the asylum and presumably had been equally passive at liberty makes one wonder why anyone would ever have suspected him let alone become convinced that he was the murderer. But in the absence of another Kosminski and without going down the road of a confusion hypothesis, we have little choice but to accept that there were reasons for suspecting him and for believing that he was Jack the Ripper.

Of course, if Anderson did not expect the suspect to stand trial then whether the eye-witness was or was not prepared to give evidence would have been wholly irrelevant. Anderson’s emphasis on the witness’s refusal to give evidence indicates that he did expect the suspect to be tried and blamed the witness for this not having happened.

Aaron Kosminski appears to have been manifestly insane and clearly unfit to plead, so it’s highly unlikely that he’d ever have been tried (let alone hanged – which are other reasons causing one to wonder if he was in fact Anderson’s suspect), so Anderson presumably hoped that he’d have been brought before the magistrates to be formally declared insane and committed, the evidence that he was Jack the Ripper being made clear at that time. But the eye-witness’s refusal to give evidence evidently prevented that and the police released the suspect (another extraordinary part of the story, but Anderson indicates the police were legally obliged to), which gave the family the chance to have him certified and thus escape the misery of being associated with the crimes.

It's odd that so few people seem to have known about all this, but no doubt there will have been reasons why it wasn't broadcast throughout the Yard. Maybe it was simple embarassment at having had Jack the Ripper within one's grasp and having had to let him go. Maybe that is really why Anderson was keen to demonstrate that very early on the police had been focusing on the right areas.

[Paul]

If he was there, he knew that Kosminski was JTR, just as certainly as Anderson did. He knew this as fact. The question then becomes why would he need to write the name down later?

The simple answer would be that he wrote the name down because he was writing down stuff that Anderson hadn't written down. He was simply expanding what Anderson had written. If Swanson would not have written down for his own consumption something he knew as an absolute fact, why, when noting the name of the officer who bugged Anderson over the threatening letters, did he write down Macnaghten’s name and his rank?

What Swanson wrote down ws stuff he knew. Whether he knew it from direct personal experience or as something he had been told, it was something he believed - or at least there is nothing in what he says to suggest that he doubted any of it. So why write down stuff you know very well and believe to be the truth? I don't know, but it's what Swanson did, and not jsut in Anderson's book either.

Sorry, a little edit here. I meant to add that whatever the reason may be, we have to accept that Swanson may not be independent support for Anderson. Indeed, since neither Anderson nor Swanson need have been present at the identification, both could be repeating what they’d read in a report or heard verbally from someone else. What probably really matters at this stage is our assessment of whether or not the whole identification thing was a porky which Swanson was gulled into believing, in which case, as said elsewhere, we have a whole different set of problems to face, or whether it really did happen. Somehow I doubt that the whole episode, from suspicion first falling on the suspect through to him being committed was delivered to Swanson as a fully cooked pudding. As the man in charge of the Ripper inquiry I’d have thought that some of the ingredients would have been seen by him during the preparation. So Swanson is not likely to have been gulled about the whole thing, from which it seems fair to conclude that probably there was at least a suspect and a witness. However, the thing is whether or not there is any reason or any good, solid reason for supposing that Anderson (or anyone else) would have concocted the whole story.

[Robert Linford]

Here's a temporary speculation (and it will probably prove extremely temporary, once people read it) :

Suppose someone saw a man chalking on the wall in Goulston St just after the Eddowes murder. Maybe the chalker resembled Lawende's man. Suppose this witness only came forward after the inquest (as Hutchinson did), only this time the police managed to keep it all quiet.

Two or three years later the police call in the witness for an identification, which proves successful. They then tell the witness, "We have quite a lot of stuff on this suspect, and we believe that your Goulston St testimony might just be the final piece of evidence we need to convict him."

If the witness is a fellow Jew, he may feel that the suspect is being "fitted up" by the police. Perhaps the suspect, during the ID, has behaved in a manner suggestive of incipient insanity e.g. muttering to himself. Not knowing the other reasons why the police suspected the man, the witness might have been averse to being the means of hanging someone who wasn't quite right in the head and may have been in the process of being "framed," and so he declines to swear. This is then interpreted by Anderson and Swanson as "Jews sticking together."

Robert

[Paul]

Here's a temporary speculation (and it will probably prove extremely temporary, once people read it) :

Suppose someone saw a man chalking on the wall in Goulston St just after the Eddowes murder. Maybe the chalker resembled Lawende's man. Suppose this witness only came forward after the inquest (as Hutchinson did), only this time the police managed to keep it all quiet.

Two or three years later the police call in the witness for an identification, which proves successful. They then tell the witness, "We have quite a lot of stuff on this suspect, and we believe that your Goulston St testimony might just be the final piece of evidence we need to convict him."

If the witness is a fellow Jew, he may feel that the suspect is being "fitted up" by the police. Perhaps the suspect, during the ID, has behaved in a manner suggestive of incipient insanity e.g. muttering to himself. Not knowing the other reasons why the police suspected the man, the witness might have been averse to being the means of hanging someone who wasn't quite right in the head and may have been in the process of being "framed," and so he declines to swear. This is then interpreted by Anderson and Swanson as "Jews sticking together."
Robert

Hi Robert,
I'm not sure that either Anderson or Swanson interpreted the witness's behaviour as 'Jews sticking together'. That the witness refused to give evidence when he learned that the suspect was a Jew may have been a straightforward statement of fact, and I doubt that anyone would have trouble in understanding why he may have taken that road, especially if he believed his testimony would lead to the suspect being hanged. And it is this stated reason for the witness refusing to give evidence - that he thought it would hang the suspect - that we should take into consideration too, especially as it probably means that the eye-witness saw something more important that the suspect in the vicinity of the crimes.

Cheers
Paul

[How Brown]

Umm...I tend to think that the witness didn't have to "find out" that the suspect was a Jew ( either by someone mentioning his name and background...or that there was a placard on his chest with his name or whatever ).

I think he knew he was a Jew on sight before any discussion took place. I think he would have also known he was a Jew on sight the night he was alleged to have seen him well before the Hove incident.

Sorry if I have offended anyone. Not all the other stuff I say, but this time for sure.;)

[Robert Linford]

Hi Paul

It's terribly difficult, though, to imagine a suspect being convicted on the evidence of one man's eyewitness testimony. Even if someone had passed through Mitre Square and seen Kosminski bending over the body of Eddowes, it's only his word against Kosminski's (assuming that Kosminski is in his right wits and can deny the allegation). Perhaps if a witness of unimpeachable reputation - a top policeman, religious leader etc - saw something damning, then maybe it would carry enough weight to convict a suspect. But surely, if we are going by eyewitness testimony alone, then an "ordinary" witness would be insufficient, wouldn't he?

Robert

[Mags]

Perhaps getting a conviction wan't the point.

If the suspect was insane beyond the reach of law and the police wanted to confirm that they had the right man, an eyewitness would bolster that idea. Even if his identifyingthe suspect wouldn't hold up in court, the authorities would want to rest assured that they had the WM in custody.

[Stan Russo]

Paul,

I agree that the true point here is determining whether or not Anderson concotced the whole thing. In examing Swanson, you seem to have concluded that not only did Anderson NOT concoct the whole thing, but that Swanson was more than likely there to see it happen, so therefore he is an independant confirmation that it did happen, thus Anderson DID NOT concoct the whole ID.

You do mention that Swanson could have simply been told by Anderson, which would still allow him to write down the suspect's name. I believe that is what I have been trying to get at this whole time. We see this as two different things though.

In assessing your comment that Swanson wrote down what he knew, indicated by the "Ch. Const." title for MacNaghten, the biggest and most important question, therefore, must be - If Swanson knew, then how did he get pertinent items about Kosminski wrong, specifically that he was dead when Anderson's 1910 book came out?

I find it hard to believe that if Swanson witnessed this ID, conviction or not, that the police department would not have kept tabs on Kosminski and known everything about him from that moment on - which Swanson obviously did not.

I'm not sure why a more common sense understanding of this episode doesn't lean toward Anderson lying about this ID. I understand that you believe him, but since we have so many discrepencies regarding this specific episode, common sense leans toward Anderson concocting it.

I bet Daniel Farson believed MacNaghten was beyond reporach until the day he passed. Unfortunately, that does not mean MacNaghtan was.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul and All,
Hargrave Lee Adam"s book, CID - Behind the Scenes at Scotland Yard provides a revealing insight into the maverick side of Anderson the police chief-
Adam wrote:...".he felt keenly the injustice done to the police when they failed to catch and convict a criminal against whom there was a lack of legal proof."He gives an example of Anderson"s concept of the difference between moral and legal proof:
"There had been a mysterious murder in the West End,and as no clue had been left behind by the culprit the police were ata loss.A woman had been strangled in bed.A certain man in relation to the dead woman,was very abusive towards the police for failing to arrest the murderer.In fact he was so active in his hostility that he aroused Sir Robert"s suspicions.So he decided to apply a test.He gave orders the man should be summoned to Scotland Yard and that he should be shown into his,Sir Robert"s private room.Then with the man seated in front of him,and nobody but their two selves in the room,the Commissioner,fixing a steady gaze upon his visitor declared the murderer had been found.
The man turned deathly pale and trembled in his chair,but said nothing.Then Sir Robert went on to say how a test had been applied to the eye of the dead woman.A photograph, a "close up" photograph ,had been taken of one of the eyes with the result that a clear image of the murderer was found upon the dead woman"s retina! It was partly an invention .Such an experiment had in fact been made, but proved futile.However the man did not know."Then "exclaimed Sir Robert,"I was morally certain I had the murderer before me!"
Nothing unfortunately could be done-It was merely moral and not legal evidence"

Its a good example of Sir Robert"s willingness

a] to invent/lie---viz regarding the photographic image he claimed had been taken of the murderer from the dead woman"s retina

b] to reach conclusions about a man"s guilt by using fabricated
"evidence"


c]and in this particular case to fail to consider other reasons for the man"s extreme nervousness-eg the effect of his "experiment" on the man who - may have been upset believing he was about to learn the identity of the killer of a woman he had had a close relationship with-and/or

d]to ignore the impact it may have had on the man sitting in his office Anderson being the Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard, implying the man in front of him was a murderer


It is athoroughly disconcerting tale - more like something from The Arabian Nights than the Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard.

Its almost like saying he had "hunches" about people"s guilt or had paranormal gifts when it came to identifying murderers!

Natalie

[Paul]

I think he knew he was a Jew on sight before any discussion took place. I think he would have also known he was a Jew on sight the night he was alleged to have seen him well before the Hove incident.

Hi Howard,
‘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 because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged, which he did not wish to be left on his mind. D.S.S.’

The wording certainly implies that the witness identified the suspect and was cheerily prepared to give evidence until he learned the suspect was also a Jew, but Swanson may not have intended to imply this. It may be that the witness appeared willing to give evidence but on being taken to the identification was struck by the import of what he was going to do and declined to proceed with giving testimony. We should not ignore the other reason Swanson gives, namely that the witness thought his evidence would hang the suspect.


It's terribly difficult, though, to imagine a suspect being convicted on the evidence of one man's eyewitness testimony. Even if someone had passed through Mitre Square and seen Kosminski bending over the body of Eddowes, it's only his word against Kosminski's (assuming that Kosminski is in his right wits and can deny the allegation). Perhaps if a witness of unimpeachable reputation - a top policeman, religious leader etc - saw something damning, then maybe it would carry enough weight to convict a suspect. But surely, if we are going by eyewitness testimony alone, then an "ordinary" witness would be insufficient, wouldn't he?

Hi Robert,
I don’t think the eye-witness testimony alone would have convicted the suspect and sent him to the gallows, especially years after the witnessed incident, but if there was other damning evidence then the eye-witness testimony might have been the icing on the cake, so to speak. I don’t want to speculate about types of evidence, but I’m supposing here that if there was a mass of evidence that the suspect was Jack the Ripper but nothing actually putting the suspect at the scene of the crime, then the witness’s testimony could be seen as crucial.

Perhaps getting a conviction wan't the point. If the suspect was insane beyond the reach of law and the police wanted to confirm that they had the right man, an eyewitness would bolster that idea. Even if his identifying the suspect wouldn't hold up in court, the authorities would want to rest assured that they had the WM in custody.

Hi Mags,
If the suspect was Aaron Kosminski then it would appear from his committal papers that he was manifestly insane and it must have been obvious to everyone that he was unfit to plead and would never have stood trial. But the police could still have brought charges and the evidence would be presented before a magistrate, but instead of committing the suspect for trial the magistrate would be presented with or would otherwise call for medical evidence pertaining to the suspect’s sanity and fitness to plead. The suspect would then or later be formally committed to an asylum. Thus the police would have been able to present the evidence that they had caught Jack the Ripper, albeit the suspect would never have been tried or formally convicted.

I'm not sure why a more common sense understanding of this episode doesn't lean toward Anderson lying about this ID. I understand that you believe him, but since we have so many discrepencies regarding this specific episode, common sense leans toward Anderson concocting it.

I don’t believe Anderson. He is an historical source who was in a position to know the facts and I accept what he tells me, although I am very well aware of the many problems his story presents. I am equally well aware that we know next to nothing beyond the fe brief details we possess and that the problems are perhaps caused by this paucity of information. This said, I’m afraid that I have to say that I don’t think common sense leans towards Anderson concocting the story at all.

To begin with, why would Anderson have wanted to concoct such a story? Why would he have concocted a story which lacked documented evidence? Why would he concoct a story which nobody would confrm ever having happened? Where did he learn about Aaron Kosminski, a real person committed by his family in 1891 and with no known connection to the crimes? Why did he pick on Aaron Kosminski, prima facie a harmless imbecile who nobody would have thought was Jack the Ripper in the first place? Why would Swanson have bought the story hook, like and sinker? And when do you suppose that Anderson invented this whole tale, in 1891 or in the years between then and whenever? And if subsequent to 1891, don’t you think Swanson might have wondered why, as the men in charge of the investigation, he wasn’t informed at the time it all happened?

The thing is, it’s easy to imagine Anderson writing for public consumption in 1910 that Jack was caught and concocting a little tale about an identification and a witness refusing to testify, but it’s less easy to imagine Anderson concocting a whole scenario in or subsequent to 1891 and providing such detail that it was not only accepted by Swanson but was persuasive and convincing to him as well.

And this whole concoction theory is based largely on the notion that Swanson would not have written the marginal notes if he’d actually been aware of or present at the identification, and on the statement by Swanson that the suspect was dead. One point is extremely dubious and the other could have been a simple mistake.

No, I’m sorry, but the idea that Anderson concocted the story needs to be based on far stronger reasoning/evidence, there has to be a plausible motive for him wanting to concoct such a story and there doesn’t appear to be one, and the logistics of inventing the story seem beyond what could have been easily achieved.

Aside from Aaron Kosminski not being dead, what other discrepancies do you find in Swanson’s account?

Hi Natalie,
C’mon, a potential suspect behaved in such a way that it aroused strong suspicions and Anderson used a simple trick in an effort to elicit a confession. Do you seriously think that any of this was akin to paranormal gifts or a story from the Arabian Nights? For goodness sake, (1) tricks of all sorts, from the simple psychology of the good cop/bad cop routine to more active deceptions, were and are commonplace, (2) such deception was not unique to Anderson, and (3) we’re not dealing with choir boys here, but with policemen trying to solve a murder. And on top of all this we’re dealing with a simple anecdote told second-hand that was intended to illustrate to a far less sophisticated audience than ourselves how the police often know (or strongly suspect) the identity of a criminal but lack the evidence to prove it.

[A.P. Wolf]

'we’re not dealing with choir boys here,'

Quite right, Paul, it's the Black & White Minstrel Show.

[Paul]

'we’re not dealing with choir boys here,'

Quite right, Paul, it's the Black & White Minstrel Show.

Isn't that politically incorrect these days? Anyway, what do you mean?

[Robert Linford]

Hi Paul

We agree about the evidence. But I was trying to find a scenario which would obviate the need for either Lawende or Schwarz, and which would dispense with a scene-of-crime sighting (it seems to me that such a "gold dust" witness would have caused ripples through the extant files, even if secrecy was maintained and if some of the files have since disappeared).

I was thinking that something like a sighting of a man in Goulston St would fall nicely between a scene-of-crime sighting (in which case, why no mention of the witness?) and the run-of-the-mill "I saw a bloodstained man 12 hours after the murder" sort of thing.

Robert

[Paul]

We agree about the evidence. But I was trying to find a scenario which would obviate the need for either Lawende or Schwarz, and which would dispense with a scene-of-crime sighting (it seems to me that such a "gold dust" witness would have caused ripples through the extant files, even if secrecy was maintained and if some of the files have since disappeared).

I was thinking that something like a sighting of a man in Goulston St would fall nicely between a scene-of-crime sighting (in which case, why no mention of the witness?) and the run-of-the-mill "I saw a bloodstained man 12 hours after the murder" sort of thing.

I may be wrong, but I don’t see why Anderson mentioned the eye-witness’s refusal to give evidence unless the refusal was important and if it was important then I can only think it was more damning than simply seeing a suspect in the vicinity of something. The trouble is that any half-way competent lawyer would be able to destroy such testimony in minutes simply by arguing that being seen in the vicinity of Goulston Street was not proof that the suspect dropped the apron or wrote the message or had ever killed anyone in his life. Even if Lawende was the witness and maintained that the suspect was the man seen in the company of the woman, a lawyer could argue that the man had been accosted by the woman, had exchanged a few words and had then walked on.

[Robert Linford]

Yes Paul, but what if the man was seen actually chalking?

I don't myself think that the GSG is likely to have been genuine, but if someone saw a man chalking in that doorway around 2 AM, the odds would shift dramatically.

Robert

[Stan Russo]

Paul,

so if there was a solid motive for Anderson concocting the story, you would believe he did?

[Natalie Severn]

error in thread

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,
C’mon, a potential suspect behaved in such a way that it aroused strong suspicions and Anderson used a simple trick in an effort to elicit a confession. Do you seriously think that any of this was akin to paranormal gifts or a story from the Arabian Nights? For goodness sake, (1) tricks of all sorts, from the simple psychology of the good cop/bad cop routine to more active deceptions, were and are commonplace, (2) such deception was not unique to Anderson, and (3) we’re not dealing with choir boys here, but with policemen trying to solve a murder. And on top of all this we’re dealing with a simple anecdote told second-hand that was intended to illustrate to a far less sophisticated audience than ourselves how the police often know (or strongly suspect) the identity of a criminal but lack the evidence to prove it.[/QUOTE]


Well Paul, if something is wrong and a corrupt way of obtaining a confession-it is wrong and a corrupt way of obtaining a confession-it doesnt matter whether its "usual" or not.the story illustrates quite clearly that Anderson was very selective with the truth-but I knew that already.
Robert Anderson was a hugely powerful,awe inspiring, police chief and it was quite extraordinary for him to have been getting up to such childish dirty tricks as pretending a dead woman"s retina contained an image of her murderer that he had had "photographed-you c"mon Paul!
But then this was the way he appears to have operated -busying himself in numbers of "extra curricular" activities -whether it was cosying up to "forger Pigott "and joining him in trashing Parnell in The Times or conducting his own post mortem,after nightfall,on Rose Mylett to contradict five of his police surgeons .
I believe the story illustrates a quite extraordinary abuse of his powers on a man in a vulnerable position without any lawyer to witness Anderson"s "little game".But then Anderson seems to have depended on the vulnerability of his chosen targets.After all, you couldnt get much more vulnerable in 1888 than if you were a young, unemployed ,mentally ill ,immigrant Jew,who was to spend the greater part of his life as a harmless inmate of a lunatic asylum.Who was able to shout for Kosminski?
But ofcourse there were people who were more vulnerable,The female victims of Jack the Ripper were the most vulnerable of all and ofcourse Robert Anderson was unique among senior policemen at the time ,in his policy of warning that the police would not protect them -but of course he claimed his policy had seen the Ripper off! Sheesh!

Best


Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

And then of course, Anderson, had been put in exactly the same position in his earlier years when two women identified him as the man who 'grossly insulted' them on a train at Crystal Palace.
So you raise an interesting point, Natalie, for it appears that Anderson was by then judging innocent people by the same technique he was himself judged by almost twenty years before.
I have always felt that Anderson was the very man who 'grossly insulted' the ladies at Crystal Palace, and only got away with it because of his obvious and senior connections to the Metropolitan Police.
He learn't a valuable establishment lesson then.
That you could get away with anything as long as you were a 'gentleman'.
The rest? They were scum.
So it didn't matter to them. As long as they were scum.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi AP,
I had forgotten about this AP.What was it he did exactly-do you remember the case? I think you sum him up well actually in your last post...the rest were scum!
Best
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

Paul,

There is a very simple motive and one that can be backed up by documentation, but with ten different things going on at once here, I can see that my arguments are getting lost in the shuffle. One day, perhaps at a conference, I'd like to discuss them with you.

[A.P. Wolf]

I'll dig the story out again, Natalie.

Meanwhile Paul was attempting to downplay the media impact of Jack the Ripper in the years 1900 - 1920, casting it aside as of little importance during those years... and not the influence that had these ex-cops putting painful pen to dreadful paper.
I'd be interested to know what he thinks of the following report of the time which appears to indicate the absolute opposite of his view of history... and a lot more besides!
'
Wichita Daily Times
18 August 1910
Discovers Identity of Jack the Ripper
(New York Times)
London, Aug. 16.
For the last few months the identity of "Jack the Ripper", whose crimes in Whitechapel, London during 1888-89 filled the world with horror, has concerned certain London papers. This revival of the gruesome subject has been stimulated by the publication of a book by a former chief of police, in which it is stated that "Jack the Ripper" had been actually apprehended and incarcerated in an insane asylum. This has been denied by Dr. Forbes Winslow, who reproduced the correspondence that he had with the police at the time, in which he offered to point the criminal any Sunday morning at the door of St. Pauls' church - an offer which the police, for reasons never explained, declined to accept.
Dr. Winslow has now received a letter from a married woman in Melbourne, giving a history of the man past and present, which coincides he says entirely with his views. Portions of this letter omitting the names mentioned have been given for publication. It begins.

Letter from Melbourne.

"You challenge is more than justified in "Jack the Ripper." You indeed frightened him away for he sailed away in a ship called the Murrumbidgee, working his passage to Melbourne, arriving here in the latter part of 1889."
This is after the last of the "Jack the Ripper" crimes, Dr. Winslow points out. Then follows the man's history:
"He is a native of Melbourne, Victoria. He was educated at the Scotch college here. The late Dr. ______ was a great friend of the family, and it was from him he gained his surgical knowledge, the doctor taking him to post mortems. When he arrived in Melbourne he married Miss _____, who lived only a little over a year.
His wife, the letter continues, died from natural causes. It was shortly after her death that Dr. Forbes Winslow's correspondent met "Jack". He told her he had had a hard time in London and he was then buying the papers that contained the fullest reports of crimes. She asked him why he bought these papers and the letter proceeds:

Alleged Confession.

"He said "I want to see how things are in London." Then he began reading the trial of a man named James Canham Reade. This man married and deserted several women and finally killed one, for which crime he was hanged. When he had finished reading, I said, "What a fearful fellow!" He said, "Yes." I then said, "What about Jack the Ripper?" He said, "Strange, those crimes ceased once I left England.""
This remark astounded her, especially as she knew he had been living in that part of London where the crimes had been committed. She tried, however, to banish the thought from her mind, but several times afterward she referred to it, and at last he told her he did commit the murders. She asked him for an explanation and he first said revenge and afterward that research had made him guilty. The letter continued:
"I wrote to Scotland Yard telling them all. Sir Robert Anderson answered my letter, but as I had told them all I had to say, I did not write again till last year, but I have heard nothing from them. It is my opinion they all bungled this matter up and do not like owning up to it.
"I even gave him up in Melbourne in 1894. The police examined him. He told them he was in Melbourne in 1890, so they found this was true, and without asking him where he was in 1880 they let him go. He laughed and said, "See what fools they are. I am the real man they are searching the earth for, but they take me in one door and let me out of the other." I even gave one detective a letter of his, but he only laughed. I asked him to have the writing compared with that at home signed "Jack the Ripper", but he did nothing. Now I have burned his letter long since."

One Coincidence.

The writer goes on to give Dr. Winslow the man's name, to say that he is still called "Jack" by his relatives and friends and that at the present time he is in South Africa. She suggests a means of getting into communication with him in order to obtain a specimen of his handwriting again.
The writer then mentions that he often used to attend St. Paul's in London - and that he always carried an ugly sheath knife in his belt.
"What I regret most," she adds, "is that any one should think that that poor, demented Irish student should have been guilty of this man's crimes. I did not know till this week that any one was charged with those crimes, or I should have made a great deal more noise than I have done, knowing as I do the real culprit. I am certain as I am writing that he is your man."
Dr. Winslow, commenting on the letter said that he knew "Jack the Ripper" had left England and that he had neither been captured nor committed suicide. He intends to follow up the present clue, and if Scotland Yard desires any information he will at once place every fact and name of which he is possession at their disposal. '

[A.P. Wolf]

Here we go, Natalie, from the man himself (courtesy of Grey):

'
I here recall an incident that happened to myself seven-and-thirty years ago. Being detained in London by official business far on into the summer, I took rooms at Norwood. Arriving late one night at the Crystal Palace Station, I made for my lodgings "at the double." I soon discovered that I was being pursued by a constable. Two ladies who had travelled in the same train accused me of having grossly insulted them. I returned to the station, and there my accusers identified me as the delinquent, but absolutely refused to prosecute the charge. They were in such an hysterical condition, indeed, that they could scarcely be induced to look at me at all. As I had travelled in a compartment by myself, there was only my own word against theirs; and if they had pressed the charge I do not see how I could have escaped. In any case, my position was a perilous and painful one; and but that a happy accident enabled me to put the police upon the track of the real offender, the stigma of the accusation might have rested on me to the present hour.
This digression will assist to enforce my warning that there are charges to which neither money nor friends can supply an adequate defence. - Sir Robert Anderson, Criminals and Crime: Some Facts and Suggestions, London, James Nisbet, 1907.'

What is interesting is that this incident took place at a time when many such related incidents were taking place on the 'modern' railways. Men, especially gentlemen, were taking advantage of the unique opportunity that sectioned and seperate carriages offered to abuse - verbally, physically and sexually - women travelling alone. Many of these crimes were spur of the moment things, usually committed by young gentlemen who had never ever been alone with a woman, and they quite honestly appeared unable to control such urges.
Anderson was quite a distinctive looking man, obviously a gentleman, and obviously well-heeled, so I don't believe the ladies could have been wrong in their identification... but were perhaps persuaded by the forces of law and order that they were indeed wrong.
Anderson admits to being in the carriage, alone with the ladies, so it must have been him, right?
There was no other there to take the blame.

[Robert Linford]

Well AP, he says that he was alone in his own compartment, so there was no one to vouch for him from that point of view. Whether the ladies were alone in their compartment, he doesn't say.

[Paul]

Yes Paul, but what if the man was seen actually chalking? I don't myself think that the GSG is likely to have been genuine, but if someone saw a man chalking in that doorway around 2 AM, the odds would shift dramatically.

Hi Robert,
Seen actually chalking or carrying the piece of apron would indeed change the odds, although neither would actually show that the man had murdered Eddowes or even met her for that matter. But, yes, the odds would change and if other evidence was strong then a conviction based on the witness testimony might have been anticipated.

so if there was a solid motive for Anderson concocting the story, you would believe he did?

Hi Stan,
If there was a plausible motive for Anderson to have concocted the whole story one would still have to weigh in the balance the logistics of him actually doing it, and there’s a whole lot of problems associated with that, some of which I've already mentioned.

Well Paul, if something is wrong and a corrupt way of obtaining a confession-it is wrong and a corrupt way of obtaining a confession-it doesnt matter whether its "usual" or not.the story illustrates quite clearly that Anderson was very selective with the truth-but I knew that already.

Hi Natalie,
You are correct, if the method used to obtain a confession is corrupt then it’s corrupt. However, Anderson wasn’t actually trying to get a confession but was trying to satisfy himself that serious suspicions already aroused by the man’s behaviour were justified. Anyway, whether the action was right or wrong, if all policemen have commonly resorted to such practices then it’s unfair and unjust to single out Anderson and judge him as if he was somehow exception.

But then this was the way he appears to have operated -busying himself in numbers of "extra curricular" activities -whether it was cosying up to "forger Pigott "and joining him in trashing Parnell in The Times or conducting his own post mortem,after nightfall,on Rose Mylett to contradict five of his police surgeons.

Natalie, there is no reason to suppose that Anderson knew or so much as suspected that the Parnell letter was forged by Pigott, so unil Pigott actually confessed he would have been treated as someone with sources of information about Parnell and consequently there would have been no reason why Anderson should not have associated with him. However, you had yet to show that Anderson did cosy up to Parnell. Nor have you shown that Anderson did ‘trash’ Parnell in The Times. Have you read the articles in question?

And as I have explained at some length, Anderson did not conduct his own post-mortem on Rose Mylett after nightfall – Bond conducted the post-mortem, he conducted it four days after Mylett died and he did so at a request via Anderson by James Monro.

But then Anderson seems to have depended on the vulnerability of his chosen targets. After all, you couldnt get much more vulnerable in 1888 than if you were a young, unemployed ,mentally ill ,immigrant Jew,who was to spend the greater part of his life as a harmless inmate of a lunatic asylum.Who was able to shout for Kosminski?

Er, Aaron Kosminski was committed by his own family and he was committed because he was mentally ill.

But of course there were people who were more vulnerable,The female victims of Jack the Ripper were the most vulnerable of all and ofcourse Robert Anderson was unique among senior policemen at the time ,in his policy of warning that the police would not protect them -but of course he claimed his policy had seen the Ripper off! Sheesh!

Anderson wanted to get the prostitutes off the streets. His suggestion was naïve, over-simplistic unrealistic, but it hardly makes him the fork-bearded devil incarnate you’re intent on portraying him.

Cheers
Paul

[Natalie Severn]

Paul,
Just a clarification.I did not mean that Anderson committed Kosminski.I meant that he chose someone who couldnt answer the charge.Someone who was quite defenceless as Jack the Ripper.
I believe he did so because he had a set of specific criteria that Anderson believed added up to him being Jack the Ripper- viz
-he was a low class Polish Jew
-as a Polish Jew , he belonged to a community that acted outside the law when it came to a need to dodge British Justice-even when the criminal being shielded was a serial murderer
- he was mentally ill
-he frequently masturbated
-he did odd things late at night
Thankfully for Anderson Kosminski was completely helpless against the accusation locked up in a lunatic asylum, unfit to plead ,so Anderson was free to make up any story he liked about him -as long as he didnt "name" him in his book!
And he did just that in my opinion Paul.

Finally surely you are joking Paul, when you say any policeman would have made up stories about the retention of retinal imagery on photographs?

Best
Natalie



AP, thanks for the fascinating articles.I believe you are right actually.I thought so at the time I first read of it -
Natalie


-

[A.P. Wolf]

Agreed, Robert, but I have searched long and hard for the 'happy accident' that resulted in the capture of the 'real offender', and I have not found it... yet. Three years search ain't bad though.
I reckon Anderson was blagging it.

[Paul]

Agreed, Robert, but I have searched long and hard for the 'happy accident' that resulted in the capture of the 'real offender', and I have not found it... yet. Three years search ain't bad though.
I reckon Anderson was blagging it.

Hi A.P.,
The ladies could not be induced to 'prosecute the charge' against Anderson, so it's reasonable to suppose that they would not have done so against the real offender, and if they didn't then your search for a newspaper account of the incident is likely to have been in vain. And aside from your statement that corridor-less carriages made women (and men) in vulnerable, the rest of what you say is utter fiction: you offer no evidence or supportive argument or anything of any sort to so much as suggest that Anderson was other than wholly innocent of the allegation.

Turning to the newspaper article about Forbes Winslow, the article refers to a revival of interest that was stimulated by Anderson's book. Your argument was that there was already a revival of interest


If you recall, you argued that nearly fifty books mentioning Jack the Ripper were published between 1900 and 1926, whilst only twelve books mentioning the Ripper were published between 1888-1899, and you suggested that this showed that ‘there was a very real increase of interest’ in the Ripper in the publishing world. You went on to suggest that publishers actively sought books that mentioned the Ripper, that reference to the Ripper, no matter how slight, was used to market books, and that the promise of filthy lucre encouraged people to write about the Ripper and, you suggested, to make up stories such as Andersons. I refuted that suggestion, pointing out that the types of books were largely memoirs, were mainly by people involved in the justice system, and that the references to the Ripper were often brief and sometimes fleeting. This did not suggest that there was an increased interest in the Ripper by publishers, but rather that the first quarter of the 20th century saw the retirement of people who were actively involved in the case and naturally included it in their memoirs. I likewise don't see much evidence of publishers using the Ripper to market or otherwise sell these memoirs. Nor, in the case of Anderson's book, have I seen much of a furore about his Ripper revelations, contrary to what your newspaper extract claims, the Ripper being far and away overshadowed by Anderson's revelations regarding his 'Behind the Scenes in America' articles.

Your point, really, was that an increased interest in the Ripper by publishers meant that they actively sought memoirs which mentioned the Ripper, that the attraction of filthy lucre encouraged men like Anderson to make unfounded claims, and that publishers in turn used the reference to the Ripper as a marketing ploy. I have challenged that claim, for which I see no evidence.

[Paul]

Just a clarification.I did not mean that Anderson committed Kosminski.I meant that he chose someone who couldnt answer the charge.Someone who was quite defenceless as Jack the Ripper.

Well, Aaron Kosminski was not ‘quite defenceless'. Had an accusation been made then no doubt Kosminski’s family would have defended him, if they could. But no accusation was made because the witness refused to give evidence. Furthermore, the indications are that Anderson did want to bring charges, would have brought charges if the witness hadn't rfused to give evidence and still might have done had not Kosminski's own family had him certified insane and put in an asylum. But I take your point that to all intents and purposes Kosminski would have been deemed unfit to plead, would not have been able to answer the charges brought against him, and would have made a good patsy if Anderson was so unscrupulous as to fit him up for a crime he didn't commit. The trouble is that as yet you haven't provided any evidence that Anderson would do this or that he had any reason to do it.

I believe he did so because he had a set of specific criteria that Anderson believed added up to him being Jack the Ripper- viz
-he was a low class Polish Jew
-as a Polish Jew , he belonged to a community that acted outside the law when it came to a need to dodge British Justice-even when the criminal being shielded was a serial murderer
- he was mentally ill
-he frequently masturbated
-he did odd things late at night

Fine.

Thankfully for Anderson Kosminski was completely helpless against the accusation locked up in a lunatic asylum, unfit to plead ,so Anderson was free to make up any story he liked about him -as long as he didn;t "name" him in his book!

Well, I'm not sure why you say 'Thankfully for Anderson' because it would seem from your forgoing argument that Anderson wanted to bring the charges, so it was in fact unlucky for Anderson that the family had Kosminski certified and effectively put out of Anderson's reach. And Anderson was indeed free to make up any story he liked, except Swanson seems to support him.

Finally surely you are joking Paul, when you say any policeman would have made up stories about the retention of retinal imagery on photographs

I do not mean that policemen regularly used the retinal image story, I mean only that policemen resort to ruses to 'encourage' people to talk. Anderson was faced with a man whose behaviour had already aroused serious suspicions and he used a ruse to satisfy himself that the suspicions were correct.

What really matters in this story is whether or not Anderson was actually justified in believing the man guilty on the basis of the evidence available to him, and unfortunately that's something we can't say. But what it all boils down to is that policemen very often do know or strongly suspect who committed a crime but lack the evidence to prove it or otherwise can't bring the criminal to court - such claims were made by police in the case of Jack the Stripper, for example - and that's all Anderson was saying.

[A.P. Wolf]

Now, Paul, you can see what my reference to 'black & white' was all about.
I'll see it as white and you'll swear it is black.
You know I sometimes get the impression that you are living in a world where the simple quirks of humanity do not exist. As we speak there are probably at least five authors - I know of at least two - who are preparing books for publication on this very subject, and they are using fabricated material to prop up exhausted theories, and all in a credible effort to earn themselves and their publishers what you call 'filthy lucre'.
I see the situation as being no different in 1910, when there was an increasing interest in the Whitechapel Murders, and it was deemed commercially appropriate to have 'solved' the greatest criminal mystery of all time.
These retiring police officers had two choices.
'Solve' the Jack the Ripper case... or work for Pinkerton.
Either way they took the Yankee Dollar.

[Paul]

Now, Paul, you can see what my reference to 'black & white' was all about.
I'll see it as white and you'll swear it is black.
You know I sometimes get the impression that you are living in a world where the simple quirks of humanity do not exist. As we speak there are probably at least five authors - I know of at least two - who are preparing books for publication on this very subject, and they are using fabricated material to prop up exhausted theories, and all in a credible effort to earn themselves and their publishers what you call 'filthy lucre'.
I see the situation as being no different in 1910, when there was an increasing interest in the Whitechapel Murders, and it was deemed commercially appropriate to have 'solved' the greatest criminal mystery of all time.
These retiring police officers had two choices.
'Solve' the Jack the Ripper case... or work for Pinkerton.
Either way they took the Yankee Dollar.

Unfortunately I live in a world where the simple quirks of humanity are shown to exist on a daily basis, and not just once but many times, but I'd rather history be based on some kind of supportable evidence instead of a quirk of humanity which founds allegations on opinion. In this case, if you think Anderson's book was sold to its publisher and that its publisher sold it to the public on the grounds that he mentioned Jack the Ripper then I not unreasonably require some evidence to support it.

[A.P. Wolf]

The evidence is that Anderson does do that very thing for no good or even logical reason whatsoever, apart from knowing that it would improve sales to mention his theory, and I would suggest to you that he did this at the behest of his publisher.
It seems rather laugheable of him to throw in 'case solved' for the greatest mystery of the age as an aside to his ramblings around Scotland Yard's Fenian flower beds.
I reckon these retired cops were all playing stick the tail on the donkey and then thrashing the beast around Scotland Yard to make a few quid.
They are still at it today, Paul, and guess what?
A Polish Jew did it.

[Paul]

The evidence is that Anderson does do that very thing for no good or even logical reason whatsoever, apart from knowing that it would improve sales to mention his theory, and I would suggest to you that he did this at the behest of his publisher.
It seems rather laugheable of him to throw in 'case solved' for the greatest mystery of the age as an aside to his ramblings around Scotland Yard's Fenian flower beds.
I reckon these retired cops were all playing stick the tail on the donkey and then thrashing the beast around Scotland Yard to make a few quid.
They are still at it today, Paul, and guess what?
A Polish Jew did it.

A.P., I'm sorry but the evidence is not that Anderson did 'that very thing' because you have presented absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your very personal opinion that it is what Anderson did or that he was asked to do it by his publisher.

[A.P. Wolf]

So you got this guy, Paul, our Mister Anderson who has been punching his Bible for twenty long years and publishing very credible output in that regard - still highly respected today by the modern Jewish community - and doing very nicely, thank you very much, who suddenly produces this 'sport' on his retirement, which, quite honestly doesn't make him a lot of 'filthy lucre', but does brush his ego very nicely indeed.
He takes his moment in time, and bless him, buggars it right up. For I know that you and me, and the entire population of the planet, do not attach one serious moment to his explanation that it was a Polish Jew wot did it.
The basic and raw truth of the matter is that Anderson was lost in space, didn't have a clew, and was clutching at straws which you couldn't even suck through, but it got his ego in the papers and print.
And the legions followed him.

[Natalie Severn]

Paul'
It seems quite clear that Anderson used his rank to get himself some dosh----in other words he didnt exactly write his "memoirs" as an act of charity but to obtain some pecuniary reward.
Now he based his memoirs on his activities as a most senior officer in CID and as Assistant Commissioner------in other words he was perfectly willing to "cash in " on his rank and reputation----just as Macnaghten did....ofcourse they were!
And are you seriously trying to tell us that either of these most senior of policemen , both "in charge" during the ripper scare-were unaware, when writing their "autobiographies" , that their "reputations" were on the line and that what they achieved during the Ripper hunt might well come under scrutiny from a disappointed public? Dont forget the public had been very dissatisfied indeed about the failure of the police to catch the Ripper----so might they not expect them to acknowledge responsibility for their failures?

But not a bit of it.Indeed, what better way to get round this" little problem" than to fly in the face of all that was known about the state of play re" Catching the Ripper" and for both to say they knew who JtR was ---only he was either [conveniently] dead [Macnaghten] or[conveniently] banged up in the loony bin[Anderson]!
No wonder Sir Henry Smith and Abberline were gobsmacked---they knew damn well it was all lies and nonsense!
Best
Natalie

[Paul]

So you got this guy, Paul, our Mister Anderson who has been punching his Bible for twenty long years and publishing very credible output in that regard - still highly respected today by the modern Jewish community - and doing very nicely, thank you very much, who suddenly produces this 'sport' on his retirement, which, quite honestly doesn't make him a lot of 'filthy lucre', but does brush his ego very nicely indeed.
He takes his moment in time, and bless him, buggars it right up. For I know that you and me, and the entire population of the planet, do not attach one serious moment to his explanation that it was a Polish Jew wot did it.
The basic and raw truth of the matter is that Anderson was lost in space, didn't have a clew, and was clutching at straws which you couldn't even suck through, but it got his ego in the papers and print.
And the legions followed him.

Never mind the fact that he had written this stuff before; but you are still talking fiction, A.P., because you are not presenting any evidence at all to support what you are saying.

[Paul]

Paul'
It seems quite clear that Anderson used his rank to get himself some dosh----in other words he didnt exactly write his "memoirs" as an act of charity but to obtain some pecuniary reward.
Now he based his memoirs on his activities as a most senior officer in CID and as Assistant Commissioner------in other words he was perfectly willing to "cash in " on his rank and reputation----just as Macnaghten did....ofcourse they were!
And are you seriously trying to tell us that either of these most senior of policemen , both "in charge" during the ripper scare-were unaware, when writing their "autobiographies" , that their "reputations" were on the line and that what they achieved during the Ripper hunt might well come under scrutiny from a disappointed public? Dont forget the public had been very dissatisfied indeed about the failure of the police to catch the Ripper----so might they not expect them to acknowledge responsibility for their failures?

But not a bit of it.Indeed, what better way to get round this" little problem" than to fly in the face of all that was known about the state of play re" Catching the Ripper" and for both to say they knew who JtR was ---only he was either [conveniently] dead [Macnaghten] or[conveniently] banged up in the loony bin[Anderson]!
No wonder Sir Henry Smith and Abberline were gobsmacked---they knew damn well it was all lies and nonsense!
Best
Natalie

Sorry, Natalie, but this is all theoretical.

[Paul]

Hi Folks,
Anderson’s been damned as anti-Semitic, he’s been portrayed as feeding the anti-Catholic delusions of a mentally ill subordinate, he’s been presented as mentioning the Ripper because he or his publisher knew doing so would make money, of actually being guilty of insulting two ladies on a train, of… But none of it is supported by any evidence. Anderson is being charged, judged and executed on nothing but speculation and gut responses. One can’t write off an otherwise ostensibly trustworthy, largely reliable, and informed source on the basis of how one ‘feels’ about him. To do that one needs good, solid, reasoned arguments, hopefully supported by some evidence, and I’m really not seeing much, or any, of that. I do not and never have considered Robert Anderson to be a saint, but, as I have written many times, he was a human being and subject to the failings and foibles that beset all human being. Furthermore, he was involved in the shadowy world of national intelligence and no doubt doing some very shady things in the ‘war’ against some very shady and dangerous people. But did he lie when he wrote about the Jack the Ripper being identified? We – all of us, and above all the historical record - need more than how someone ‘feels’ about him before he’s damned for pretty nearly everything except bedwetting. Whilst I happy to bat the ball back and forth with A.P. and Natalie and everyone, we really need some stronger arguments and I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t see this thread going anywhere anymore.

[How Brown]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t see this thread going anywhere anymore. ---Mr B

If everyone is in agreement, including those with other ideas to contribute to the thread who haven't done so to date, then shall we now move on to discussing Anderson's comment about not being responsible for not apprehending the Ripper....

Discussion continues....

[A.P. Wolf]

Every thread goes somewhere, Paul, and nowhere ain't such a bad place to be when you get used to it. What was it that Simply Red said?
'Nowhere is a place in heaven.'?
It is all very well adopting the purely academic approach to a personality or subject but that can lead to a fairly blinkered view when trying to put that person on the street in the time period he lived in. You tend to create a 'super mensch' then, a man who had no racial or religious views at a time when extreme racial and religious views prevailed; a man who had no particular political convictions, although he was an extreme protestant it would not bother him to have a staunch Roman Catholic minster in control of his department - the first one for... oh, what was it? Two hundred years? I can't remember now.
There was, and still is, in the police force of the capital of England, an entrenched and almost radical view of the aliens that come to our capital, whether they be Roman Catholics, Jews or half-baked Indians like my good self. As 'stop and search' applies to the black community today, so did it apply to the alien Jews of the LVP. They were the enemy, and for you to part Anderson from this basic historical fact almost makes me think you are engaged in a biography of the old fart.
Anyways, I agree, onwards.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Paul,
Well I must admit I agree wholeheartedly with AP here ,when he traces the links between the class ,race and gender prejudices still unfortunately sometimes practised today by powerful officers of law and those that were practised as more or less the norm amongst the priveleged classes in Anderson"s Victorian England.
However from my readings of a variety of men and women historians of the Victorian period-names supplied if needed-in his attitudes to women and in particular to the victims of Jack the Ripper, he is distinguished as having had a particularly ruthless attitude.For example, Inspector Abberline,by contrast , was shocked and saddened at the frightening sight of homeless,destitute women out late at night on East End streets during the Ripper scare-without even the money to buy themselves a bed for the night .But not Robert Anderson with his callous "let them eat cake" responses towards their abject wretchedness and poverty.
Anderson comes across to me in his autobiography and in records, as having been singlemindedly ruthless , arrogant and a bigotted braggart -particularly in his dealings with Ireland, women and" low class Polish Jews".

Best Wishes
Natalie

Oh and yes lets get on!

[Paul]

It is all very well adopting the purely academic approach to a personality or subject but that can lead to a fairly blinkered view when trying to put that person on the street in the time period he lived in.

A.P.
What you describe as 'a puely academic approach' obviously takes into account the times in which a person lived - I said this a good few posts back when I quoted the L.P. Hartley's famous opening to The Go_Between. So, yes, a man is the product of the times and place into which he was born, educated, grew up and lived, and he should be judged by that. But I’m afraid that you still need evidence to support your accusations and you are not presenting any. That racism existed does not make Anderson a racist, that anti-Semitism existed does not make Anderson an anti-Semite, that men insulted women on trains does not mean Anderson ever insulted a women on a train, that Anderson was staunchly Protestant does not mean that he fed the anti-Catholic delusions of a mentally ill subordinate. These are all claims you have made and not one of them is supported by any decent evidence or in most cases any evidence at all.

‘Could’ does not mean ‘did’.

Anderson’s publisher could have seen 'Jack the Ripper' as a selling and marketing tool and Anderson could have been induced to include the Ripper and even to have invented the whole Polish Jew story to improve the sales of his book, but you are applying modern publishing practice to the publishing business of 1910, even to the point of discussing book jackets and jacket flaps, but I suspect you'll find that the publishing business in 1910 and today were very different beasts and that books back then were not commonly adorned with jackets. Furthermore, you present no evidence - no advertisement, for example - that Blackwood's used Jack the Ripper in the overall promotion of the series of articles or that the book publisher did. Your whole suggestion is therefore wholly theoretical and prima facie improbable. What you claim, without evidence to support it, is fantasy. It isn't history, A.P.

As said, that doesn't mean it is uninteresting. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, although some might argue that some of it is so wild that it doesn't really merit consideration, and some people might think it's worth researching, but one must clearly distinguish between what is speculation based on no real evidence and what is history. And Anderson as a racist, anti-Semite, and insulter of womn on trains is not history.

Cheers
Paul

[Paul]

Well I must admit I agree wholeheartedly with AP here ,when he traces the links between the class ,race and gender prejudices still unfortunately sometimes practised today by powerful officers of law and those that were practised as more or less the norm amongst the priveleged classes in Anderson"s Victorian England.

However from my readings of a variety of men and women historians of the Victorian period-names supplied if needed-in his attitudes to women and in particular to the victims of Jack the Ripper, he is distinguished as having had a particularly ruthless attitude.For example, Inspector Abberline,by contrast , was shocked and saddened at the frightening sight of homeless,destitute women out late at night on East End streets during the Ripper scare-without even the money to buy themselves a bed for the night .But not Robert Anderson with his callous "let them eat cake" responses towards their abject wretchedness and poverty.

Anderson comes across to me in his autobiography and in records, as having been singlemindedly ruthless , arrogant and a bigotted braggart -particularly in his dealings with Ireland, women and" low class Polish Jews".

Hi Natalie,
Yes, but with respect, history isn’t based on what you ‘feel’. You have to support what you feel with evidence. So if you think he was a single-mindedly ruthless, arrogant and bigoted braggart in his dealings with women then let’s see the evidence that supports that opinion.

Or is it entirely based on his recommendation that the police tell the East End prostitutes that they could not protect them?

You see, I could interpret that as a recommendation by a man who knew that it was a practical impossibility for the police to protect the women who were prey to Jack the Ripper, and was so desperately concerned about them that he could not allow them to be misled into thinking otherwise and so told them they were about as safe as tethered goat put out as bait for a tiger.

The reality is that prostitues are very vulnerable because they take strangers to dark and lonely places and very definitely don't want to be observed by a burly copper, so for their own safety that have to be kept off the streets. Anderson had two options, arrest them or frighten them off the streets. The first was impractical. The latter was probably unrealistic, but, if ever implemented, which as far as I know it wasn't, may have saved some lives.

You see, the intent behind the words can be very different from how you personally interpret it. It could be callous indifference, it could be simply practicality, or it could be great concern.

And where on earth did Anderson remark callously about their 'abject wretchedness and poverty'? And even if he did, did that mark him out as any different from the vast number of people who shared and voiced the opinion that these people were the dregs of humanity responsible for their fate? If it didn't then he was no more callous than the majority. And if he wasn't different to the majority then he was simply a man of his times, no more and no less likely to have been influenced by those times than would anyone else have been.

[Paul]

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I don’t see this thread going anywhere anymore. ---Mr B

If everyone is in agreement, including those with other ideas to contribute to the thread who haven't done so to date, then shall we now move on to discussing Anderson's comment about not being responsible for not apprehending the Ripper....

Discussion continues....

Howard,
Are you refering to Anderson's comment: 'I spent the day of my return to town, and half the following night, in reinvestigating the whole case, and next day I had a long conference on the subject with the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner of Police. " We hold you responsible to find the murderer," was Mr. Matthews' greeting to me. My answer was to decline the responsibility. " I hold myself responsible," I said, " to take all legitimate means to find him." But I went on to say that the measures I found in operation were, in my opinion, wholly indefensible and scandalous...'

If so, you will note that Anderson did not say he was not responsible for catching the Ripper, but that he was responsible for taking all legitimate means to find him - a possibly pedantically precisian distinction but one apparently based on his opinion that the measures found in operation were 'indefendible and scandalous'.

The only 'indefendible and scandalous' measue he mentions being that the prostitutes were apparently receiving police protection, and Natalie and I may disagree over why Anderson thought that was 'indefendible and scandalous'. I'm not sure that it has any bearing on his statements about the identity of Jack the Ripper though.

[Natalie Severn]

Paul,
You have actually rejected all "evidence" that I myself have presented to you. When I quoted from a quite scrupulous and highly regarded researcher,Christy Campbell"s from "Fenian Fire"----you rejected what I quoted as "inaccurate" saying the articles he had written on Parnell were entitled ,"Behind The Scenes in America"-as if that was not all part of the same thing . I am submitting it again for clarification:re Anderson"s public admittance that he had contributed to the defamation of the character of the Irish Home Rule MP ,Charles Stewart Parnell, in articles he had written for The Times-from "Fenian Fire"-page 34 ,


"To the present hour I do not know whether the Home Secretary was then aware of MY AUTHORSHIP OF THE TIMES ARTICLES OF 1887 on "PARNELLISM AND CRIME, he confided in the April installment of his Blackwoods Serial,"

---this- from the" horses mouth"!

You went on to advise me, that I should read more widely; Well maybe its not the scope of the historical data that matters here but whose version of "history" we have read !
I quoted a well known Jewish academic, Professor William Fishman ,whose erudition and whose family experience is rooted in The East End and you suggested his understanding of Anderson"s anti -semitism was unfounded-that he needed proof ! And yet,since Professor Fishman is Jewish,ought he not to know better than most whether Anderson"s public statements regarding a"Low class Polish Jew" being "Jack the Ripper" together with his statement that a Jewish community had shielded a murderer were anti semitic or not? BTW Fishman is "recommended reading" in schools and universities in London nowadays because of his profound knowledge of the Jewish Community in the East End in the 1880"s and 1890"s.
The Women"s movement long ago identified the bias in the differing accounts of various "historians".While I am reluctant to "wholeheartedly" agree with their conclusions,I believe there is a lot of truth in what they say which is that history more often than not depends on who writes it! That in the main what you and I were given to read as "history" in schools was indeed HIS story--and written almost entirely by white, middle class, middle aged, males -like Anderson, writing from the point of view of the particular ruling class in power at the time they wrote!
There has been bias throughout most historical accounts .Think of the accounts we were once given in schools of"The Battle of Hastings"-how deeply flawed they were, mostly written from the point of view of William and his conquering Norman"s-----in fact it was only when accounts "from the other side" emerged,from one long lost account of an Anglo Saxon monk with first hand accounts of the events , that traditional and accepted versions were turned on their heads, deemed "incomplete".And what a " whitewash" no mention previously of William"s" scorched earth" policy, the genocide in the wake of the Norman Conquest of 1066 which raged throughout England and Wales .Thankfully most history books have now been revised to include all rediscovered sources.
Finally,when Anderson writes of his "Low class Polish Jew" suspect and brands the community from which he came as one that "shielded him" from facing justice for his allegedly murderous deeds ,Anderson provides us with no good evidence for his claim; if it was because he was so concerned about a possible libel suit, then this rather implies that he could not substantiate his claim in law dont you think?

Best Wishes
Natalie
Paul-our posts crossed but I didnt say Anderson said the victims were wretched/abject etc-I said thats what they were-which is true and since they were living in much the same abject poverty as some hundred thousand others in the East End were,they were, in addition, mostly homeless -four of the five victims , so how could they possibly cope if the police refused to protect them? No wonder Vigilance Committees had had to spring up over Whitechapel.

Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Well said, Natalie.
I have yet to see Paul produce any evidence that Anderson did not display antipathy to Roman Catholics, or Jews, especially when I have produced direct evidence showing him personally accusing Catholic priests of all manner of things, and labelling the Catholic Church as 'unchristian'... and we are, after all, here to discuss and investigate some very biased and unfounded comments that Anderson made against the Polish Jewish community of East London, for no good reason whatsoever.
I have produced comments from researchers, specialists in their subject, who do indeed see Anderson's comments as racist and highly uncalled for, given the racial tension that existed at the time.
But Paul has dismissed them.
I have shown that a senior officer at the Yard at the same time was more than capable of extreme antipathy towards religious minorities.
Anderson was a well educated and well cultivated man who must have well understood that his comments would have been robustly denied by the community he appeared to attack.
The defence certainly came, Paul, so it seems fairly silly of you to deny the attack. Especially when that defence also came from other senior officers more directly involved with the Whitechapel Murders.

[Stan Russo]

That's why the "was George Washington a racist?" comment was critical to this discussion, which most seemed to ignore.

It is almost impossible to call Anderson an anti-semite and it is almost impossible not to call him one. The more important question, which no one seems to address is, what would have been his motives for doing so.

Also, most do not know about the 1895 article by Major Arthur Griffiths, under a pseudonym, which has been wholly attributed to information from Anderson. That is another wrinkle in this whole story, because as we know now, almost every time something was written about MacNaghten's suspects, a short while later, Anderson was chiming in with elements of the "Polish Jew" theory.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Stan,
What you refer to is indeed interesting about Major Griffiths. He clearly supported Anderson"s theory ,though apparently also an old friend of Anderson.
This is the same Griffiths referred to in the Littlechild letter -".......Except I knew Major Griffiths for many years. He probably got his information from Anderson who only "thought he knew" .
Best
Natalie


Thanks AP-gold dust support!

[A.P. Wolf]

I don't think I can agree with you there, Stan, Griffith's general output about the case was to sit on the fence, he claimed that the killer may have been placed in an asylum, or may have topped himself by drowning in the Thames.
He was obviously dancing a delicate tango.
It was all about Kudos.
Large African antelope that disappears into the undergrowth if you ain't quick enough on the trigger.
The Egos are the little buggars that dance up and down in front of you when the powder is dry.

[Paul]

Paul,
You have actually rejected all "evidence" that I myself have presented to you.

Yes, and I took pains to explain at some length why I rejected it.

When I quoted from a quite scrupulous and highly regarded researcher,Christy Campbell"s from "Fenian Fire"----you rejected what I quoted as "inaccurate" saying the articles he had written on Parnell were entitled ,"Behind The Scenes in America"-as if that was not all part of the same thing . I am submitting it again for clarification:re Anderson"s public admittance that he had contributed to the defamation of the character of the Irish Home Rule MP ,Charles Stewart Parnell, in articles he had written for The Times-from "Fenian Fire"-page 34 ,


"To the present hour I do not know whether the Home Secretary was then aware of MY AUTHORSHIP OF THE TIMES ARTICLES OF 1887 on "PARNELLISM AND CRIME, he confided in the April installment of his Blackwoods Serial,"

---this- from the" horses mouth"!

The articles Anderson wrote were not ‘on Parnell’. They were about links in America between Irish-American extremists and the Irish Home Rule movement in Britain. This series of articles barely mentioned Parnell personally and were based in the main on newspaper reports and material supplied by Henri Le Caron.

Anderson did not admit to having ‘contributed to the defamation of the character of…Parnell’, that is your interpretation of what is implied by his admission. What Anderson admitted to was authoring a series of articles which, as said, barely mentioned Parnell personally, which he claimed were written to thwart bombings in London, and about which Anderson observed, rightly as far as I know, ‘that not a single statement… was ever refuted or even challenged.’

The quote you cite was contained in the serialization of his memoirs and wrongly gave the impression that he was claiming authorship of a series of articles in The Times which had attempted to associate Parnell with Fenian terrorism. Anderson explained the cause of the error at some length in an appendix to the volume edition of The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

Both sets of articles were published under the heading ‘Parnellism and Crime’, but Anderson had nothing whatsoever to do with the first series which included the notorious forged Pigott letter.

Anderson’s series of articles did not defame the character of Charles Stewart Parnell except in the sense that any connection between crime and Irish Home Rule would have reflected on Parnell. And one must also remember that many people at that time believed that Parnell did know about or otherwise turned a blind eye to extremist activities. Recall that the Irish MP Nolan met and took two known terrorists around the House of Commons.

You went on to advise me, that I should read more widely; Well maybe its not the scope of the historical data that matters here but whose version of "history" we have read !

I suggested that you should try to base your understanding of the hugely complex issues surrounding Parnell and so forth on more than Fenian Fire.

I quoted a well known Jewish academic, Professor William Fishman ,whose erudition and whose family experience is rooted in The East End and you suggested his understanding of Anderson"s anti -semitism was unfounded-that he needed proof ! And yet,since Professor Fishman is Jewish,ought he not to know better than most whether Anderson"s public statements regarding a"Low class Polish Jew" being "Jack the Ripper" together with his statement that a Jewish community had shielded a murderer were anti semitic or not? BTW Fishman is "recommended reading" in schools and universities in London nowadays because of his profound knowledge of the Jewish Community in the East End in the 1880"s and 1890"s.

In your following paragraph you refer to the accepted history of the Norman Conquest being turned on its head by a monk’s first-hand account - in other words that our understanding and interpretation of history changes as new information emerges. And that was my point about Professor Fishman, namely that what he believed in 1987, when he was writing East End 1888, has been overturned since then. As a matter of fact, I know Professor Fishman and I was provided with a proof copy of East End 1888 when writing Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts in 1988, I discussed the Polish Jew theory with him and Don Rumbelow at some length over lunch in Blooms at that time, and we have met several times since then. I am well-acquainted with his and with his academic stature and his books, which I own and have read several times, being a particular admirer of East End Jewish Radicals. I have also read many other histories of Jewish immigration. Not that any of that matters. The point is that prior to late 1987 nobody had really connected Anderson’s suspect with the ‘Kosminski’ mentioned in the Macnaghten memorandum and it was thought even by authorities like Don Rumbelow that Anderson was referring to either Pizer or Emanuel Delbast Violenia. Anderson’s claim that the Ripper was a Jew seemed unsupportable and it was commonly thought to reflect the anti-Semitic or anti-immigrant feeling of the time. Professor Fishman is not an authority on Jack the Ripper and had no particular knowledge of Robert Anderson and his conclusion simply reflect what was then the common view. However, that common view changed in late 1987 with the publication of Martin Fido’s The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, which was the first book to examine Anderson and his claims and to link his Polish Jew with ‘Kosminski’. Professor Fishman was similarly unaware of the Swanson marginalia and of all the material which has come to light in the past 20-years, such as Anderson responses to Mentor’s articles in the Jewish Chronicle and much else besides. Professor Fishman was therefore reflecting the state of knowledge as it existed in 1986/87 when he was engaged in writing the source you quoted.

Finally,when Anderson writes of his "Low class Polish Jew" suspect and brands the community from which he came as one that "shielded him" from facing justice for his allegedly murderous deeds ,Anderson provides us with no good evidence for his claim; if it was because he was so concerned about a possible libel suit, then this rather implies that he could not substantiate his claim in law dont you think?

Anderson didn’t mention libel in connection with the community shielding Jack the Ripper.

Cheers
Paul

[Paul]

I have yet to see Paul produce any evidence that Anderson did not display antipathy to Roman Catholics, or Jews

Sorry, A.P., but I don't have to produce any evidence that Anderson did not display antipathy to Roman Catholics. I am not making any claims, you are. It's up to the person who makes the claim to support it.

especially when I have produced direct evidence showing him personally accusing Catholic priests of all manner of things, and labelling the Catholic Church as 'unchristian'...

You have produced one fairly innocuous paragraph which in essence expressed a view with which I assume most Protestant theologians would broadly agree.

and we are, after all, here to discuss and investigate some very biased and unfounded comments that Anderson made against the Polish Jewish community of East London, for no good reason whatsoever.

No we are not. We are here to see what if any evidence there is that Anderson's comments were biased and unfounded.

I have produced comments from researchers, specialists in their subject, who do indeed see Anderson's comments as racist and highly uncalled for, given the racial tension that existed at the time.

Er, which researchers and specialists do you have in mind here, A.P.? Menttor said Anderson's comments were regretable given the tensions that existed, and I cite Anderson's agreement.

I have shown that a senior officer at the Yard at the same time was more than capable of extreme antipathy towards religious minorities.

He was mad.

Anderson was a well educated and well cultivated man who must have well understood that his comments would have been robustly denied by the community he appeared to attack.

The defence certainly came, Paul, so it seems fairly silly of you to deny the attack. Especially when that defence also came from other senior officers more directly involved with the Whitechapel Murders.

Well, if he knew the community would robustly deny what he said, why did he say it? Are you saying that Andrson intentionally sought to provoke an argument with the Jewish community? And what attack am I denying?

Cheers
Paul

[Natalie Severn]

Paul,
Because you took pains to say why you rejected my evidence does not mean that you were entirely correct to reject it.For example, what you have presented regarding the "Parnellism and Crime" articles may contradict aspects of the the direct quote I gave from" Fenian Fire" but it certainly does not absolve Anderson of "complicity" with "The Times" and their underhand motives for the publication of these and the infamous Pigott articles ,indeed there is at least some "guilt by association" with Richard Pigott ,a self confessed forger whose libellous "letters" were a clear attempt to criminalise a democratically elected MP.Whatever was he doing writing under a pseudonym anyway ? Surely Anderson should have known better than to be "scribing articles under a false name " which could and did appear under the same heading as "Parnellism and Crime" for The Times"national newspaper.And what was The Times "little game" in this regard one might well ask?
And Paul,I am actually very well aware of the "complex" history of Ireland from its historical colonisation at the time of King John ....and ofcourse of the immensely "complex, Divide and Rule policies that followed and that made "self rule" at the time we refer so " problematic".
But what I wish to emphasise is that whatever you may say regarding Sir Robert Anderson,he shows himself to be not simply a highly priveleged, white ,anti working class male, of the Victorian era ,with all the baggage that implies ,but that he has shown himself at every step of his career from his earliest youth onwards to have been a zealot too,either as a die hard Orange man ,or as an intelligence agent starting in Dublin Castle , progressing to head of CID-Ireland.
This man,IMHO, failed to protect, and stated he was "unwilling to protect", the vulnerable female victims of Jack the Ripper;moreover,he failed to capture the culprit and instead of acknowledging his failure, attempted to avoid all blame for that failure by focussing it on the Jewish Community "s alleged " willingness to shield a "low class Polish Jew " from justice"- and for all the astonishing assertion ,Anderson presented no evidence whatsoever -why was that I wonder?
Best
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

Paul, we patently and obviously do not even agree to disagree on this matter, so like you I see no point in further discussion, and let's leave this man for history to judge.
Was he a man who was so out of step with the reality that surrounded him that he would have made this comment in a flippant fashion?
Was he perfectly aware that his comments would cause racial tension and resentment?
But made them anyway?

You have not convinced me at all to change my view of Anderson, that he was both buffon and mandarin; and I have obviously not changed your view of Anderson, that he was some kind of supermensch who was incapable of serious error when it came to his writing.
I said a long time ago that I was suprised that Anderson himself made reference in his memoirs to the delicate situation he found himself in with the two ladies at Crystal Palace Station... you probably see this as commendable.
I on the other hand see it as an apology for his guilt in the matter, because someone had dug this incident out of his past and confronted him with it many years later. A pre-emptive strike if you like.

[A.P. Wolf]

Recommended reading for Paul, if he ever comes back to this planet:
'Predators or Prey' by Andrew O'Day.
'Urban Culture' by Chris Jenks.
You'll be just so suprised about how wrong you are.

[Paul]

You have not convinced me at all to change my view of Anderson, that he was both buffon and mandarin; and I have obviously not changed your view of Anderson, that he was some kind of supermensch who was incapable of serious error when it came to his writing.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am seeking the evidence that he was a bufoon and mandarin. And I do not, as I have repeatedly stated, believe that Anderson was any different to every other human being on the planet, and I cetainly believe he was capable of error - everyone is capable of error - when it came to his writing; as I have said, Anderson himself acknowledged that he may have said too much or too little. So let's try to stay in touch with what I acually have said and what I actually do believe.

I said a long time ago that I was suprised that Anderson himself made reference in his memoirs to the delicate situation he found himself in with the two ladies at Crystal Palace Station... you probably see this as commendable.

I on the other hand see it as an apology for his guilt in the matter, because someone had dug this incident out of his past and confronted him with it many years later. A pre-emptive strike if you like..

I don't see it as commedable or otherwise. It was an incident from Anderson's owen experience which illustrated a point he was tring to make. If you choose to see it as something different that that's up to you, but it ain't history.

[Paul]

Recommended reading for Paul, if he ever comes back to this planet:
'Predators or Prey' by Andrew O'Day.
'Urban Culture' by Chris Jenks.
You'll be just so suprised about how wrong you are.

Given that I am not the one who imagines Anderson feeding the anti-Catholic fantasies of a madman, I think it's fairly obvious that I am still firmly rooted to this planet and that we must look elsewhere for the astronaut round here.
But thanks for the reading suggestions; they mention Anderson, do they? They provide evidence that he was anti-Semitic, that he fed his subordinates delusions, that he invented the story of the Polish Jew to sell a few more books?

[Stan Russo]

AP,

I am not concerned with whether you agree with me or not, that does not change the facts of the case, as well as your misrepresentations.

This isn't Griffiths' claims, his writings on the case are a direct result of Griffiths' being given his information directly from both Anderson and MacNaghten, both of whom, it has been recorded, he was very friendly with.

Try looking up the 1895 article by 'Alfred Aylmer', which defends Anderson and was written by Griffiths, under the above psuedonym.

This was not about kudos, this was about Anderson getting information out there, specifically,in my opinion, counter information.

However,it is all meaningless,because once again, through the use of your ridiculously unfunny quips and cloudy satire, a chance to have a meaningful discussion about an important, if not one of the most important parts of the case, has fallen by the wayside.

Job well done.

[Paul]

Paul,
Because you took pains to say why you rejected my evidence does not mean that you were entirely correct to reject it.

Hi Natalie,
Of course it doesn’t mean that I was correct to reject your evidence. What I am doing, though, is giving you the reasons – the evidence, if you like - why I think you are incorrect. You can accept it or reject them. That’s the nature of debate. It’s how we progress.

For example, what you have presented regarding the "Parnellism and Crime" articles may contradict aspects of the the direct quote I gave from" Fenian Fire" but it certainly does not absolve Anderson of "complicity" with "The Times" and their underhand motives for the publication of these and the infamous Pigott articles ,indeed there is at least some "guilt by association" with Richard Pigott ,a self confessed forger whose libellous "letters" were a clear attempt to criminalise a democratically elected MP.

As I’ve said, Anderson’s articles were about links in America between Irish-American extremists and the Irish Home Rule movement in Britain, and I agree with you entirely that they added by association with the previous and inflammatory series of articles to the 'defamation' of Parnell. But as the leader of the Home Rule movement, as the man who gave his name to that movement, ‘Parnellism’, any articles showing links between that movement and extremist groups would by their very nature reflect on Parnell himself. And whilst we now know that the Pigott letters were forgeries, how widely was that known or suspected in 1887, and did Anderson know or suspect it at that time and when he wrote his articles? If he didn’t then all he was doing was giving support to a newspaper campaigning against a possible terrorist, for let’s not forget that although Charles Stewart Parnell was a democratically elected MP, he was also the leader of a movement which had known and established links with extremist organizations which had planted bombs in Britain. How would you feel about Charles Stewart Parnell if he’d been shown to be guilty?

Whatever was he doing writing under a pseudonym anyway ? Surely Anderson should have known better than to be "scribing articles under a false name " which could and did appear under the same heading as "Parnellism and Crime" for The Times"national newspaper.And what was The Times "little game" in this regard one might well ask?

Anderson did not write under a pseudonym, the articles did not bear the name of their author, and he not only gave his reasons for writing them in The Lighter Side of My Official Life and elsewhere (the articles were intended to thwart bombing in Britain by showing that the authorities were well aware of what was going on behind the scenes in America – a noble intention I’m sure you’ll agree), and Anderson did have the support and agreement of his superior, Monro, or thought he did (and almost certainly he did).

And Paul, I am actually very well aware of the "complex" history of Ireland from its historical colonisation at the time of King John ....and of course of the immensely "complex, Divide and Rule policies that followed and that made "self rule" at the time we refer so " problematic".

But what I wish to emphasise is that whatever you may say regarding Sir Robert Anderson, he shows himself to be not simply a highly priveleged, white, anti working class male, of the Victorian era ,with all the baggage that implies, but that he has shown himself at every step of his career from his earliest youth onwards to have been a zealot too, either as a die hard Orange man, or as an intelligence agent starting in Dublin Castle, progressing to head of CID-Ireland.

I am not saying that Anderson wasn’t privileged, white, anti-working class, or a zealot. I simply want evidence supporting those statements. Well, I don’t need evidence that he was white and privileged, or that he was staunchly Protestant and opposed to Home Rule, but a zealot in the sense of being fanatical, well that’s where you need some proof to back up what you are saying, if in fact that is what you are saying. But what we are ultimately concerned with here is whether or not any of this would have predisposed Anderson to accept that a Polish Jew was Jack the Ripper or otherwise to have invented the whole Polish Jew story.

This man,IMHO, failed to protect, and stated he was "unwilling to protect", the vulnerable female victims of Jack the Ripper;moreover,he failed to capture the culprit and instead of acknowledging his failure, attempted to avoid all blame for that failure by focussing it on the Jewish Community "s alleged " willingness to shield a "low class Polish Jew " from justice"- and for all the astonishing assertion ,Anderson presented no evidence whatsoever -why was that I wonder?

You are, of course, entitled to draw whatever conclusions to wish and, who knows, you may be right, but you don’t know that Anderson focused on the Jewish community’s alleged willingness to shield one of their own from justice. You don’t even know that this was Anderson’s conclusion or necessarily one with which he agreed. Nor do we know that the allegation wasn’t true.

All we know is that the result of a house-to-house inquiry it was concluded that the murderer was living with people who must have seen him get rid of his bloodstains and have had inevitable suspicions which they did not communicate to the police. This in turn suggested that he was one of the newly arrived East European immigrant community (conveniently known as Polish Jews) because they were or were believed to be reluctant to hand one of their own over to the authorities. Anderson says that this was a conclusion ‘we’ reached – note, he did not say ‘I’ reached – and, as already stated, it may have been a conclusion to which he was not party.

As for why he didn’t present any evidence, why should he have done? He didn’t present any evidence to support his claim that he used to play football in the corridors of the Home Office. He didn’t present his doctor’s sick note to prove that he needed rest before assuming his duties as head of the C.I.D. Macnaghten didn’t provide evidence that he received private information about Druitt or provide evidence that Druitt’s family suspected him. Major Smith didn’t provide evidence that he saw blood swirling down a plug or that he met a man at night. These men didn’t have to provide evidence of these things. They were in a position of authority and to know the facts and they expected their word to be taken.

Cheers
Paul

[Natalie Severn]

Paul,
You ask how I would feel if Parnell had been found guilty? Well that will get us into a whole new ball game,Paul, where we begin to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Irish Republican movement !
I think suffice is to say that it must have been obvious to most at the time that it was pretty crucial for Parnell have had the "co-operation" at least ,of the " Republican Brotherhood",since prior to his parliamentary successes the Republican movement hadnt wanted anything to do with Westminster.However that did not make him a "Fenian" or in any way indicate that he believed in achieving "self government " for Ireland by force!Indeed, from the beginning he showed himself to be a Parliamentarian and constitutionalist -not a believer in "extra constitutional" means. It would seem that his budding success at Westminster was giving hope to the movement that self government might yet be achieved via the Parliamentary road thereby gaining their long cherished goal of freedom from British Rule !

With regards to " bombings" then the book "Fenian Fire" once again throws up a new and rather curious" perpective" about how the British Government actually responded to armed insurrection by the Irish Republican movement-----not as some may have imagined it seems!


As for the question of Anderson supplying evidence to back up his claim against the Jewish Community and his "low class Polish Jew" suspect , if he believed he had no need to supply evidence to back up who he said was Jack the Ripper,because of who he ,Anderson, was, then what on earth was the point of a British system of justice ---where a trial was needed with a jury, a defence team and a prosecution to establish a person"s guilt or innocence?
If he really thought himself to be above the law in such matters,then he was either arrogant beyond belief or suffering from delusions of grandeur!And so was Macnaghten if he too believed he could accuse a man of murder, solely on his own say so .But Machnaghten and Smith didnt go so far as that-only Anderson did---who said he knew it as a definitely ascertainable fact........the identity of JtR
Natalie

[A.P. Wolf]

But it wos them Jews wot did it ain't it?
From 'The Star', 17th October 1888:


WHITECHAPEL.
A House to House Search Among the Jews.
The police are making a house to house visit amongst the Jews at the East-end. They demand admission to every room, look underneath the beds, and peer into the smallest cupboards. They ask for the production of knives, and examine them. In some cases they have been refused admittance until proof was produced of authority.
The police commence their work a early as ten o'clock in the morning. In some cases the police remain outside, and

ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:-
Have you any lodgers?
How many?
What are their names?
How long have they been living with you?
Are they your friends, relatives, or assistants in your work?
Are they respectable?
Can you give the names of lodgers that left you, and the cause of leaving?
Did they leave friendly or otherwise?
Were they respectable?
All the answers to these questions are entered in a small note-book.
A Star reporter interviewed a Mrs. Andleman, of 7, Spellman-street, Whitechapel. She said: I came home from work yesterday, and as soon as I opened the street door, two men came up and said, "Do you live in this front room?" "Yes," I said. "We want to have a look at it." "Who are you, and what do you want?" "We are police officers, and we come to look for the murderer." "Do you think I keep the murderer here, or do you suggest that I associate with him?" I replied. They answered that it was their duty to inspect the rooms. I showed them into my room. They

LOOKED UNDER THE BED,
and asked me to open the cupboards. I opened a small cupboard, where I keep plates and things. It is not more than two feet wide and about one in depth. They made an inspection of that also. "Do yo think," I said, "that it is possible for a man, or even a child, to be hidden in that small place?" They made no answer, and walked out. Then they went next door and inspected those premises.

Stop and Search LVP style.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for this find AP,-its obvious from the heading that the Jews as a community had begun to fall under suspicion which was why they were targetted for an intensive police search.............so the "Juwes being blamed for nothing" graffiti could,possibly, be just a self explanatory bit of protest by an indignant resident.And the ripper may well have spotted it earlier that month and mischievously placed the apron piece beneath it that night , to be provocative!
Natalie

[Stan Russo]

That's a good point Natalie, if I read it right:

The question of Parnell's guilt is irrelevant. The motive behind Anderson's words and writings are more important than whether or not Parnell was truly guilty.

I, for one, having read many books on the early Fenian and Clan-na-gael movements, believe that Parnell knew about Fenian terrorism but eventually, like most politicians, betrayed them to an extent to broker a deal, perhaps beneficial to both sides.

There were many in the Fenian movement who did not want peace. And, more importantly, every book I've read on the subject clearly states that by 1888 there were no London based plots by the Fenians - they had moved to American political affairs by then and strengthening their Canadian foothold.

One must wonder then, if there was a Fenian connection to JTR, as has been mentioned by numerous people, who was responsible, because it surely was not the Fenians.

[Paul]

But it wos them Jews wot did it ain't it?
From 'The Star', 17th October 1888....

I believe I refer to that article in Jack the Ripper: The Facts. It tends to support what Anderson said, that attention focussed on the Jewish community, don't you think?

[Paul]

That's a good point Natalie, if I read it right:

The question of Parnell's guilt is irrelevant. The motive behind Anderson's words and writings are more important than whether or not Parnell was truly guilty.

I, for one, having read many books on the early Fenian and Clan-na-gael movements, believe that Parnell knew about Fenian terrorism but eventually, like most politicians, betrayed them to an extent to broker a deal, perhaps beneficial to both sides.

There were many in the Fenian movement who did not want peace. And, more importantly, every book I've read on the subject clearly states that by 1888 there were no London based plots by the Fenians - they had moved to American political affairs by then and strengthening their Canadian foothold.

One must wonder then, if there was a Fenian connection to JTR, as has been mentioned by numerous people, who was responsible, because it surely was not the Fenians.

There were two reasons why I asked the question about how Natalie would feel if Parnell was guilty. (1) because she refers to The Times’ underhandedness and speaks of criminalising a democratically elected MP, and (2) because she damns Anderson as guilty by association. But if Anderson is to be damned by association – and if conclusions about his character are to be based on that - then one must be clear about what he was or thought he was associating himself with, and in this case he was associating himself or otherwise became associated with those who believed that Parnell was involved with Irish-American extremists and terrorist activities. If Parnell was innocent – as the Parnell Commission indicated that he was - then the campaign to criminalise and ruin an innocent man seems abominable, turns those who were involved into monsters and makes their underhand methods detestable. But if Parnell was guilty (or if good evidence existed that he was guilty) then whilst one could still assume a moral high ground and condemn the use of lies and underhandedness, most would, I think, agree that they were probably necessary against those who themselves used lies and played dirty.

But this is, of course, highly simplistic - the issues involved were far more complex –and it’s ultimately irrelevant because even if Anderson was a monster with regard to the campaign against Parnell and maybe even Irish Home Rule, that doesn’t mean his comments about the Polish Jew were untrue, Martin Fido having presented a reasoned case that Anderson was prepared to lie and deceive if he believed it achieved a greater good but that this sort of lying was ‘incompatible with telling lies in books for a wide audience’. One can, of course, always imagine scenarios of ever increasing complexity in which Anderson would have lied in a book if lying in a book achieved a greater good, but this sort of ‘what if’ theorising is generally unacceptable.

[Paul]

You ask how I would feel if Parnell had been found guilty? Well that will get us into a whole new ball game,Paul, where we begin to discuss the rights and wrongs of the Irish Republican movement!



I think I've probably asnwered in my reponse to Stan what I meant by asking that question.

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;37315]As for the question of Anderson supplying evidence to back up his claim against the Jewish Community and his "low class Polish Jew" suspect , if he believed he had no need to supply evidence to back up who he said was Jack the Ripper,because of who he ,Anderson, was, then what on earth was the point of a British system of justice ---where a trial was needed with a jury, a defence team and a prosecution to establish a person"s guilt or innocence?

If he really thought himself to be above the law in such matters,then he was either arrogant beyond belief or suffering from delusions of grandeur!And so was Macnaghten if he too believed he could accuse a man of murder, solely on his own say so .But Machnaghten and Smith didnt go so far as that-only Anderson did---who said he knew it as a definitely ascertainable fact........the identity of JtR

I'm sorry, but with sincere respect (I hate saying 'with respect' since it usually means the opposite, but as I do respect your opinions it's genuinely meant) I think you are going over the top here. All the men made claims for which they offered no proofs, and they didn't offer proofs because they were essentially telling a story from their own experience, not presenting an argument which required evidential support. And what they did was not exceptional. Many, many policemen have told similar stories: Chief Superintendent Du Rose wrote how he believed Jack the Stripper was a security guard on the Heron Trading Estate in Acton who committed suicide.
As for Anderson going further than the others, if he believed it was 'a definitely ascertained fact' why shouldn't he say it was? What if it really was a definitely ascertained fact'? Okay, so the suspect's guilt wasn't determined and sanctioned by a court of law, but isn't that splitting hairs a little bit? Remember, nobody was actually named and insufficient detail was given for anyone to identify the suspect, so what did Anderson really say that was so wrong (apart from his statement that the suspect was a Jew, which he acknowledged was perhaps insensitive to the Jewish situation (but which he explained by saying that he had written it before without his words generating comment and he therefore gave no consideration to the possibility that their repetition would be any different; a not unreasonable explanation.)