Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sir Robert Anderson In The NY Times March 20, 1910

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sir Robert Anderson In The NY Times March 20, 1910

    New York Times
    March 20, 1910
    ************
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

  • #2
    New York Times
    March 20, 1910
    *************











































    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

    Comment


    • #3
      Anderson when explaining the house to house search seemed to say it was because of those stains he was found. ?

      Comment


      • #4
        One very obvious flaw in this report, is that it says "during the king's"
        Can't make out next work correctly, but it's of no matter really.
        It was Not during the king's anything, it was in Victoria's reign when Anderson suggests events occurred.
        The article of course says 5 years previous which would be 1905 And during the reign of King Edward, however there is nothing in Anderson's works which hint at any such date.



        Hence this is not directly quoted at all, and almost certainly is journalistic interpretation to put it politely .


        The circumstances described are what occurrs in a trial, if the suspect is found unfit to be tried.
        Such happened of course in the case of Thomas Cuttbush.
        Such events are totally contrary to what Anderson says in either his articles or his book.
        It is of course contrary to Swanson too.


        I therefore judge this article should not be seen to be athuorative at all.



        Steve

        Comment


        • #5
          Steve

          You're right..in fact Anderson's actual input was probably limited to the sketch.
          To Join JTR Forums :
          Contact [email protected]

          Comment


          • #6
            By March 1910, the date of the New York Times article, Sir Robert Anderson was a spent force, but despite having been asked ten years earlier to resign by Home Secretary Charles Ritchie he retained a high opinion of himself, and he took every opportunity to keep his ego inflated.

            Many who trust in what Anderson wrote in Blackwood’s magazine about the Ripper being a Polish Jew [whom they also believe to have been Kosminski, the exonerated Polish Jew in Macnaghten’s revised memorandum], dismiss the New York Times article. They contend that Anderson had somehow become an unwitting dupe who had nothing to do with the article; that "Veteran Diplomat"—Frederick Cunliffe-Owen—was an unprincipled hack who cobbled the story together from a variety of unreliable sources, and that basically his article wasn’t fit to line the bottom of a parrot cage.

            Anderson having become the unwitting dupe of a story which contradicted much of what over the years he had told reporters and writers about the Ripper is hard to swallow. A subscriber to a press cuttings agency, Anderson maintained a shrewd watchfulness over his image in the press, making it unlikely that an illustrated full-page article in a Sunday edition of one of New York’s leading newspapers could have appeared without the prior consent or subsequent opprobrium of this most cautious of men.

            Why Sir Robert Anderson continued to spout BS is anybody's guess.

            Comment

            Working...
            X