|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Dr Robert Anderson
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: Police Officials:
Dr Robert Anderson
Author: Chris Phillips
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 04:54 pm |        | R.J. Palmer
That seems 100% reasonable to me.
(By the PC, do you mean PC Smith from Berner Street?) |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 06:19 pm | | | Chris--Maybe; seems reasonable. Or an unknown City constable that we know not of. Cheers, RP |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 06:33 pm | | An excellent review by R. J. of the facts as known with a totally plausible explanation.
It has to be realised that all of the Anderson theorising stands on a flawed foundation. And the problem with that is that many of those who follow the Anderson line of reasoning, reject any other material as inferior or irrelevant. This becomes a sort of funnel vision wherein they fail to see anything that does not fall in line with the Anderson-based doctrine.
The die-hards of the Anderson dogma then perceive any criticism of him as either as unwarranted personal attack, denigration of his character or commentary based on ulterior motives.
Far from that, it is a desire to review and understand the man and what he said in the hope that the mystery becomes a little clearer. It demands the dismissal of preconceived ideas and assumptions and requires an objective look at all available pertinent material.
Anderson has enjoyed some excellent, selective PR in the past and the time has come to reject that for what it is and to take a more objective and detailed look at him.
So, no, I do not say reject Anderson out of hand, but I do say examine him more closely, objectively assess the facts and then reach your conclusion. I do not wish to point anyone in the direction of any suspect theory. That must be left for the intelligent reader to do himself. Few display the perspicuity of R. J. Palmer, but he has certainly mastered the material available and has given food for thought to others. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 08:19 pm | | RJ--I said I meant when he returned, which was after the murder of Chapman.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 09:45 pm | | Is it the consensus that the Polish Jew referred to by Anderson was in fact Aaron Kosminski then ?
Is it safe to dismiss ( therefore ) Aaron Kosminski as being Jack the Ripper ? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 31 January 2003 - 10:35 pm | | Stewart--Thanks for the kind words--of course, about 99% of my thinking about this perplexing theory has been more or less pilfered from your many contributions to the debate. In particular, the way you and Keith set out the Anderson material in the Companion came as a sort of revelation to me, and I began to rethink the Kosminski theory through in a chronological order.
I don't think the aim here is to drive a wooden stake through Anderson's heart once and for all, or throw open the doors to Colney Hatch. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of Kosminski, and it will certainly be interesting to see what direction Anderson research will go in the future. But I do think that you and Phil Sugden, in particular, and Melvin Harris, have forced many of us to have a more circumspect view of Sir Robert.
A couple weeks ago I was reading the series of "Jack the Ripper" articles that Richard Whittington-Egan wrote for the Contemporary Review back in the early 1970s. What a remarkable upheavel has taken place in the past 30 years. It will be interesting to see what new light the next few years will bring.
Simon--I wouldn't use the word "safe." But I think we have reasonable doubt.
I think I'll have to take a bit of a break from this thread, as my head hurts from thinking it all through 'yet again.' Thanks for the conversation, RJP |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 12:24 am | | "Is it the consensus that the Polish Jew referred to by Anderson was in fact Aaron Kosminski then ?
Is it safe to dismiss ( therefore ) Aaron Kosminski as being Jack the Ripper ? "
Hi Simon,
I think you are inadvertently highlighting one of the pitfalls here.
I believe it is quite safe to dismiss Kosminski as the Ripper, but because his asylum records have survived and give no indication that he was regarded by his keepers that he was dangerous or violent. Personally, I think that if they did think he was indeed the Ripper, there would be some clear indication of such in his files.
What's dangerous, however, is to dismiss Kosminski because he might be Anderson's suspect. That's going to far in the other direction, IMHO.
Back to Sagar for a moment.....I’m not sure what to make of the Sagar story, but on the face of it it does seem to corroborate Anderson, except that we don’t know that Aaron Kosminski had any association with Butcher’s Row, or, indeed, that he worked, which may rule Aaron out despite the strong links otherwise.
1905 article claims that identification was impossible (which would be true for the City, but apparently not for the Met), placed in an asylum (as was Met suspect) murders came to an end (which is what Swanson says). And the Reynolds’ News article echoes Swanson too: He was watched carefully (Swanson says the City CID kept the suspect under 24 hour surveillance), removed to an asylum by friends (committed by family), no more Ripper atrocities after he was removed (ditto).
Sir Robert |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 03:27 am | | It is the complete lack of reference to any identification,outside of Anderson and Swanson,that suggests to me that there was none that identified the murderer.
If one looks at the police files,it will be seen that innumerable reports were submitted by all classes of officers,on all facets of the case.None suggest what Anderson is stating.To me it is unthinkable that such reports would not be submitted.
It is one thing to have a suspicion that an event happened because a certain person said it did,it is something else to prove that statement true.So far there has been nothing that would suggest Anderson was truthful in stating that the ripper was known.
"Undiscovered murders are rare in LOndon,and the Jack the Ripper crimes are not in that category".
Well Anderson was correct there.Undiscovered murders are rare the world over,and the ripper crimes could hardly go undiscovered for long.A rare insight on his part,perhaps someone could enlighten me on what he actually meant. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 04:02 am | | It's great to see this intelligent debate. Such debate is possible only when the full picture of a subject is available. If a part picture is presented to readers it is impossible for those readers to reach a proper conclusion on that subject. So if we are told that Anderson is beyond reproach and that what he said must have happened, a false picture is built.
With the greater amount of material surveyed, as we have seen here, a more complete picture is seen and decisions can be made with greater accuracy. Thus, for both the pro-Anderson lobby and the anti-Anderson faction, if such distinct lines can be drawn, there is much to consider and pros and cons for both. As Robert has observed, there are shades of grey and nothing is as clear-cut as we would like it to be.
But we must have the element of 'pro' and 'anti' for the debate to get anywhere and for ideas and hypotheses to be developed. R.J. has indicated that he has based his thinking on material that has been presented objectively and as fully as possible. But he does underline the great upheaval that has taken place in the 'Ripper world' over recent decades. It is a contentious subject and with so may espousing different personalities and suspects this is to be expected.
Richard Whittington-Egan is a close friend of mine and we often discuss the case together as his book is nearing completion. And I can assure readers that Richard is without bias and will present an excellent survey of all the Ripper literature up to the year 2000. It will be an invaluable guide for those who have difficulty in assessing the large amount of books available.
Robert highlights the inherent danger of dismissing Kosminski as the Ripper out of hand. But as Paul Begg has so eloquently shown, there is little doubt that Anderson was referring to 'Kosminski', and that, given what is known from the various surviving records, that 'Kosminski' must surely have been Aaron. Another point that Robert raises, quite rightly, is that we should not forget what the members of the City Police had to say, both Robert Sagar and Harry Cox, for surely they must have been talking about the same suspect?
Then valid questions are still raised by those reading about all these confusing issues, as we see from Harry's very explicit view. |
Author: Chris Phillips
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 05:41 am | | Sir Robert Anderson wrote:
Back to Sagar for a moment.....I’m not sure what to make of the Sagar story, but on the face of it it does seem to corroborate Anderson, except that we don’t know that Aaron Kosminski had any association with Butcher’s Row, or, indeed, that he worked, which may rule Aaron out despite the strong links otherwise.
In fact, don't we have a statement that he hadn't worked for some time before his admission to the asylum?
If I remember correctly, G.R. Sims says that the Polish jew suspect lived alone, but I think most other indications are that he didn't. If he was watched at Butcher's Row, it seems likely it was because he was living with relatives there. Of his two known brothers-in-law, apparently Morris Lubnowski, had lived in Greenfield Street since 1885, but I don't know whether the location of Woolf Abrahams in 1888 is known (he was at Sion Square in 1890).
I asked about this on the Kosminski board, but no information was forthcoming. As Woolf seems to have had a daughter born c. 1887, his address then should be obtainable from her birth certificate. But I can't believe someone hasn't already done this.
Harry Mann wrote:
It is the complete lack of reference to any identification,outside of Anderson and Swanson,that suggests to me that there was none that identified the murderer.
Although G.R. Sims does mention an attempted identification by a policeman, in terms quite consistent with Macnaghten's statement that Kosminski resembled the individual seen by the "City PC" (see earlier posts in this thread).
All quite consistent with R.J. Palmer's summary, I think. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 11:10 am | | It's hard to focus on events from 1888 when the news on CNN this morning is so grim, but here goes...
R.J. Palmer says the arguments against Anderson are ‘well-formed and scholarly’, but we still don’t know what those arguments are? Stewart says that ‘all of the Anderson theorising stands on a flawed foundation.’ What is that foundation? Why is it flawed? Indeed, what ‘Anderson theorising’
does he have in mind that’s based on it?
And he says ‘And the problem with that is that many of those who follow the Anderson line of reasoning, reject any other material as inferior
or irrelevant. This becomes a sort of funnel vision wherein they fail to see anything that does not fall in line with the Anderson-based doctrine.’
Which followers of Anderson does he have in mind? What evidence do they reject as inferior or irrelevant? Why isn’t it inferior or irrelevant?
And what is ‘the Anderson-based doctrine’ that evidence supposedly has to fall in line with?
If the anti-Anderson case is ‘well-formed and scholarly’, as R.J. Palmer says, could he actually spell out what it is? Is it Harry Mann’s argument
that the whole identification story is a lie? Is it Stewart’s suggestion that there was an identification but that it somehow got confused with some other identification? Or is it Phil Sugden’s opinion that there was an identification but Anderson exaggerated its significance in old age?
This isn’t being difficult, but if there really was an identification then Anderson didn’t lie about it, so all this argument about whether Anderson was a liar or not (even if anyone really has ever suggested that Anderson didn’t lie) IS irrelevant isn’t it? So specific theories are supported by specific evidence. So what’s the ‘well formed and scholarly’ anti-Anderson theory and what evidence supports it? Or are there loads of different, half-formed anti-Anderson arguments? Are people simply arguing that there was an identification and that Anderson simply got it
wrong? If so, which pro-Andersonites dispute that possibility and why do they dispute it? Are people arguing that Anderson deliberately and knowingly lied about the suspect being guilty? Are they saying that a geriatric Anderson exaggerated the significance of the identification? WHAT is their argument? In fact is there a cohesive argument or just a collection disparate bits and pieces of variable relevance and significance. WHAT is this well formed and scholarly argument?
Finally, R.J. Palmer seems confused over what he’s arguing about. ‘The Anderson theories are all over the field--from Cohen to Kaminsky to
Kosminski to Pizer and back again.’ But ‘Cohen…to Pizer’ is theorising about the identity of the suspect and has nothing to do with whether
or not the identification happened, happened in the way described, or the accuracy or otherwise of Anderson’s conclusion.
And in any event Pizer doesn’t count – I think he was suggested back in the 1920s before it was established that he had never been committed
to an asylum, and with every respect to Martin Fido, Cohen/Kaminsky is a tangential argument that only needs to be considered if one assumes
Anderson was right and that Kosminski was NOT his suspect.
Instead of bland, sweeping statements and assertions, maybe it would be a good idea if Stewart, R.J.P., and so on actually got down to
specifics, specific statements, specific theories, specific evidence, specific people, and also laid out a core argument so that we’d know what
they were claiming and what evidence was relevant to it.
Sir Robert |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 12:23 pm | | Sir Robert--Excuse me, but this is rather tedious. Where above do I say that no identification took place? In fact, I specifically say that I believe that Aaron Kosminsky was identified [albeit in a weak way] by not one, but by two witnesses. I have given my reasons for how and why I interpret Anderson's words.
The only problem that I have ever had with the Anderson theorists is the wild and baseless claim that Anderson knew. That the identification was 100%. And yes, this has sometimes been the claim in the past. See for instance, the rather misleading documentary naming Kosminski that came out on the Discovery channel two or three years ago. 'The investigation was stepped down after Kelly', etc. etc.
Or David Radka's continued insistance that Anderson said that the identification was a 'definitely ascertained fact.' [Anderson didn't even say that. He said that the suspect was a Jew was a definitely ascertained fact].
It seems rather pointless to go over the specifics yet again, when no one from the opposing faction has even "raised their colors." It's impossible to debate in the abstract, and the only Anderson supporters we now see posting are of the hybrid-variety, and I personally don't even know what their specific theories are, or who they believe the witness or the suspect to be. It's difficult to sword fight with a ghost. So tell me, how do I go on, but to point out the obvious? That Anderson elsewhere speaks of the "non-detection" of the Ripper, that Macnaghten didn't accept the identification, and that the other senior and junior Police officials felt the case was unsolved? Wondering, RJP |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 04:23 pm | | Hi All,
We have no evidence as such which would stand up in any court of law to show such an event ever took place.As it stands Anderson may have been mistaken for several reasons or he may have been correct about an ID. We can talk about the ID until the cows come home but we will not be any the wiser for it. The bottom line is that we do not have the evidence to show that such an ID ever took place but that does not mean it didn't.In short we are left in limbo and no one will win such a debate one way or the other.This is one of those topics which go around in circles without ever getting anywhere. The same old ground is trod time and time again for years with the same results what is neeeded is a fresh approach to the subject then and only then will results appear.I for one do not believe that this crime will always remain unsolved and for all we know it may have already been solved. |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 04:21 am | | As Ivor says,we could go round and round in circles,without getting anywhere,but in my estimation this thread is worthy of discussion,in so far as we either believe or disbelieve Anderson's assertion that he knew the killer's identity,and that the killer was a Jew.So indirectly,whenever a person outside of that racial category is put forward as the murderer,Anderson's words are being challenged.
I Take the extreme view of believing Anderson lied,but I only differ from many other posters in the extent to which I challenge his statement.
The oft repeated,"Prove he was wrong",is the catch cry of Anderson's supporters,perhaps forgetting they have a resposibility of proving him right.
One can only go so far as to examine all possible avenues that may disclose Anderson's words having basis in fact.
POlice files,newspaper reports,autobioghraphies.Those and many other sources have been carefully examined.
If,after all those steps having been taken ,and the result found to be negative,it can reasonably be believed that a situation as described by Anderson did not exist.No one was ever KNOWN to be the killer.
It is then up to each person to express his or her opinion,in the manner they think appropriate. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 06:23 am | | As Robert has put one or two questions my way I will address them before departing. The Anderson theorising stands on a flawed foundation for the simple fact that it is theory built upon theory.
For the most quoted basis of all modern theories regarding the Polish Jew suspect is the word of Anderson; and that word is not proven fact, it is merely Anderson's own theory.
The historical evidence that it was a theory, albeit one that hardened over the years into fact in its proposer's mind, is there. The quote by Major Arthur Griffith's, a friend of Anderson's, is there in black and white for all to see and is dated to the first half of 1895, the year following the writing of Macnaghten's report naming the three suspects. It reads [emphasis mine]:-
"Although he has achieved greater success than any detective of his time, there will always be undiscovered crimes, and just now the tale is pretty full. Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum." [Emphasis mine]
Now, please may we read, understand and internalise, three important points in this piece?
1. Anderson was "subjected to much dissatisfaction..."
2. "...at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders."
3. "He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was..."
These are unequivocal words written in 1895, long after any supposed identification of a Polish Jew suspect, and remarkably similar to the words in the R. Harding Davis article of 1889, where Anderson says: "...our failure to find Jack the Ripper..."
I am sorry if this is repetition, but some people do not appear to able to understand what has been written. Obviously, these words pose a problem for Anderson theorists and require them to engage in verbal gymnastics. They are obliged to repeat all the 'must haves', 'what ifs', maybes', etc. in order to address this problem. But this is what we find all along the way with Anderson-based theorising - verbal wangling. The simple answer that he started with a theory, convinced himself over the years that it was right, and ended up believing it, is rejected out of hand by the Andersonites.
The fact must be added that Anderson's own friend Griffiths wrote those words, then just three years later, when his book was published, failed to accept Anderson's theory and opted for Macnagten's 'body in the Thames' as the strongest of the three suspects described in the 1894 Macnaghten report. But how often does this have to be repeated? How can Robert say, "...what 'Anderson theorising'"?
If Robert cannot answer some of his own questions for himself, then I am afraid that he must have missed some pretty obvious evidence that has been printed in the past, and I'm not doing his research for him.
I have one question, however, for Robert as regards sources for readers to assess the strength or otherwise of the Anderson argument. Paul Begg is one of the most intelligent and long-standing supporters of Anderson. Many tyros base their ideas on Anderson on what Paul has written. So why are the crucial comments of R. Harding Davis in 1889 and Major Arthur Griffiths in 1895 totally missing from his latest book? They are surely relevant. In fact when dating Anderson's first claim that the Ripper had been 'safely caged in an asylum', he dates it to the 1901 The Nineteenth Century piece and not to the Windsor Magazine piece of six years earlier in 1895, which is missing [page 265]. However, Griffiths is quoted with his description of Anderson on page 78.
When it comes to proposing Kosminski as the Ripper we find the full text from Swanson's annotation in the Anderson book on the endpaper, commencing "after the suspect had been identified..." printed in full on page 269, then, again, in full on page 273. Whether this is an oversight or subliminal suggestion (by repetition) I don't know. But these points, it seems to me, are examples of how the Anderson argument is presented in print.
Now, I like Paul and this is not a personal attack (before someone starts screaming that) nor is it a criticism made because of some hidden agenda or 'suspect war'. I am commenting on a published fact.
Perhaps this goes some way in providing Robert with an answer to his request for something specific in answer to why the points raised above need addressing. But as for a protracted and specious argument - Robert can forget it. |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 09:00 am | | Hi RJP
No firing necessary - a perfectly reasonable explanation.
All I was asking for is that people don't start from the point of accusing Anderson / Swanson of making the whole thing up. They might have deluded themselves into absolute belief in a particular suspect, but they would, I'm sure, have had some grounds for that belief, not chosen someone at random and entirely fabricated a sequence of events to justify that belief.
There are I think still many other possible sequences of events that could explain their views, but I had thought from the outset that a very likely possibly was that the witness wasn't the one that was generally supposed. And of course if the witness was a PC than that would explain why he was at the Seaside Home.
Best regards
Pete |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 11:59 am | | I think its perfectly plausible that there may have been some confusion over who identified The Suspect , whether it was a PC or a Jewish witness or both. I don't think that Anderson made the story of an identification up although we can only surmise at what actually happened at the identification.
But the statement by Major Griffiths that Stewart has kindly printed makes it clear that even in 1895 the Insane Polish Jew theory that Anderson held was no more than that - a theory. It seems Anderson became convinced the Ripper was a Jew because he believed the killer's own kind were hiding him after house-to-house searches turned up nothing ( similarly this may be why he believed the witness refused to identify the killer ) and he convinced himself that this had to be the truth. He seized on Kosminski as a suspect and convinced himself this poor man was the killer.
Even if Anderson's suspect was Nathan Kaminsky or Aaron/David Cohen as Martin Fido alleged , theres still no evidence for The Suspect being Jack the Ripper - Anderson had no secret information , just a ' perfectly plausible theory ' and nothing more. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 04:25 pm | | I have no desire for a "protracted and specious argument", which I guess is just another phrase for statements that disagree with yours, Stewart.
It isn’t a matter of proving Anderson right or
proving him wrong. If the evidence existed to do either then we wouldn’t be having this debate. It is a matter of trying to determine the probability of Anderson lying or telling the truth. This is source analysis, a process whereby the historian tries to assess the reliability of a source when independent verification isn’t possible.
Martin Fido has concluded that Anderson didn’t lie about the identification and he based that conclusion on an educated reading of Anderson’s secular and theological writings, his understanding of Anderson’s rather complex religious beliefs, and his understanding of Victorian morals and mores. Martin has given his reasons for thinking Anderson told the truth and if Mr Mann disputes Martin’s conclusion then he must demonstrate where Martin’s reasoning is at fault. As Martin has explained many times, he thinks Sir Robert Anderson would only have lied in order to achieve a greater good and that lying about the identification for any of the suggested reasons, such as the inability to face defeat, would not have been a greater good and that Anderson therefore wouldn’t have lied about it. This opinion is based on Martin’s assessment of Anderson from reading of Anderson’s secular and theological writing, on Martin’s understanding of Anderson’s rather complex religious beliefs and on the morals and mores of the times (Martin was a don at Oxford and specialised in Victorian literature, which has provided him with a profound
understanding of the thinking of the time).
I think it would be fair to label Fido an "Andersonite". I would be hard pressed to say I buy his views lock stock and barrel, but he's not someone I would lightly dismiss.
I believe Paul Begg sought examples of revelations comparable to the identification story, then compared them to known history and found them to be true. One cannot be certain that all Anderson’s revelation are true, of course, but the balance of probability is that they are.
If Mr Mann wishes to challenge my conclusion he
should do so by producing similar examples of comparable revelations which are found to be untrue when compared to known or accepted
history. This isn’t saying ‘prove Anderson wrong’, but that careful and considered assessments suggest that Anderson was telling the truth
and if Mr Mann disputes that conclusion he must present evidence and arguments demonstrating why the assessment is at fault.
Please continue to bear one thing in mind. I myself believe that Anderson "thought he knew", and that, collectively, there exists corroborative evidence in the remarks of Swanson and Sagar.
I welcome people taking a critical eye towards Anderson. I just don't see Sir Robert as having been the beneficiary of some "P.R. machine" where everyone looks at him through rose colored glasses.
Sir Robert |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 05:09 pm | | Hi all
I am trawling through some newspaper sources at the moment and found the article below published on the death of Robert Anderson. It's interesting in this that he disclaims all responsibility for the Parnellism and Crime articles. Hope it's of interest
From News of the World 24 November 1918
CRIMINAL EXPERT DEAD
MEMORIES OF THE RIPPER MURDERS RECALLED
One of our greatest criminal experts has passed away in the person of Sir Robert Anderson, who died from heart failure following influenza. Sir Robert, who was born in 1841 in Mountjoy-square, Dublin, was the son of Mr. Matthew Anderson, crown Solicitor in that city. He graduated at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1862, went to the Bar, and became an LL>D> in 1875. He was adviswer to the Home Office in matters relating to political crime from 1868 to 1888, when he became Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and head of the Criminal Investigation Department. These positions he resigned in 1901. On the subject of political crime Sir Robert was always doubtful whether the time would ever come when he would reveal all he knew. In this connection it is interesting to recall his statement in May 1913..."I may tell you this, though," he said, "that I had an answerable defence to the charge recently brought against me by Nationalist members of using my position as adviser to the Home Office on political crime for party purposes. the late Lord Russell of Killowen knew perfectly well that I did not do anything of the kind and I should say that the present Prime Minister knows it also. What I did was this: I thwarted one of the most dangerous Fenian conspiracies ever hatched, a conspiracy that might haveled to the destruction of westminster Abbey. For reasons into which I cannot enter I wrote a letter to the 'Times'. The editor of that paper, it is true, headed my letter 'Parnellism and Crime' but I had nothing whatever to do with that, nor had I anything to do with the writing of the series of articles published under that name." At the outset of his duties as Head of the Criminal Investigation Department, the series of crimes known as the "Murders of Jack the Ripper" broke out and Sir Robert had definitely stated that the perpetrator of those murders was a Polish Jew, who was known to the police, but that the evidence necessary for his conviction could not be obtained. Sir Robert, who received his K.C.B. in 1901, married in 1873 Lady Agnes Moore, sister of the ninth Earl of Drigheda and had issue four sons and one daughter |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 05:37 pm | | Its not a matter of lying or telling the truth really , Anderson believed he knew who the Ripper was and that was his theory. I personally don't think that Anderson lied , rather he convinced himself that he was correct. But it was a theory only - " The evidence for his conviction could not be obtained " - and there wasn't any evidence to back it up. The ' evidence ' Anderson wanted was an identification by a witness , or a confession by the suspect , but he didn't get either.
I read that sentence above as having an unintended double meaning : there was no evidence to convict the Polish Jew , but there was also no evidence for Anderson's 'conviction ' either - his belief that he knew who the suspect was.
There is no secret evidence that the ' insane Polish Jew ' was the killer , Anderson simply didn't have any proof that his suspect was the Ripper and thats the end of it. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 08:42 pm | | "The quote by Major Arthur Griffith's, a friend
of Anderson's, is there in black and white for all to see and is dated to the first half of 1895, the year following the writing of Macnaghten's report naming the three suspects."
Yawn. This is the new evidence that forces a "new look" at Anderson? How earth shattering.
As is all so well known, even to tyros, in ‘The Windsor Magazine’, Vol.1, January-June 1895, p.507, Major Arthur Griffiths, writing as Alfred Aylmer, stated that Anderson ‘has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.’
In light of what Anderson subsequently wrote, this is most likely a reference to the Polish Jew theory.
Well known for ages, and like all other evidence or pseudo evidence in the case, able to be twisted in many directions.
Sir Robert |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 09:19 pm | | My position with regard to What Sir Robert Anderson said/wrote is akin to that of David Radka
in this...
(1)He was at the time of the murders the MOST POWERFUL man in the world.
(2)His claims regarding the Ripper amount to NIL...NOTHING. His utter contempt for gentiles, Jews, and goyiim was complete (and, I may add, those researchers of the Ripper not yet born).
(3)Destiny belongs to those who believe All Things are Connected.
Rosey St Germain :-) |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 02 February 2003 - 11:48 pm | | "If Mr. Mann wishes to challenge my conclusions he should do so by producing similar examples of comparable revelations which are found to be untrue when compared to known or accepted history
But Sir Robert, haven't we already seen such examples posted?
For instance, Stewart's discussion of the Rose Mylett investigation, and Anderson's dubious claims?
Or the following posted by Jeff Bloomfield:
"As for Anderson and those memoirs, I wish people would examine them closely. He tells a story in it about a French policeman under Napolean III, who after 1870 becomes an informer for Anderson, and who tells a story that Count d'Orsy did not die of natural causes in 1851, but died as a result of a bullet meant for Napolean III. I double-checked the possible truth about that with an expert of 19th Century French history and he said it was totally false."
Maybe it boils down to one's personal beliefs. For me, I find the man a 'bit cracked.' I don't like the fact that he seems to envy the French police locking up suspects without evidence and squeezing confessions from their "unwilling lips." Not the sort of man whose judgement I'll accept on blind faith.
It's just me though. RP
P.S. By the way, Martin indeed wrote a great book. I have recommended it to others on these very boards. The research that he and Paul Begg conducted had to be done; Kosminski is certainly among the 2 or 3 most important suspects [many would say the most important] and the case against him had to be researched and presented. It's just that a few of us are a little skeptical about Anderson's certainty, and I evidently feel that he should be treated with a little more caution then you do. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 12:08 am | | "Or the following posted by Jeff Bloomfield:
"As for Anderson and those memoirs, I wish people would examine them closely. He tells a story in it about a French policeman under Napolean III, who after 1870 becomes an informer for Anderson, and who tells a story that Count d'Orsy did not die of natural causes in 1851, but died as a result of a bullet meant for Napolean III. I double-checked the possible truth about that with an expert of 19th Century French history and he said it was totally false." "
C'mon, R.J.
An unnamed "expert" on French history? Oh, that's air tight.
You gotta do better than that.
The funny thing is that we are not at all far apart in terms of our theories about the case, nor our perceptions of Sir Robert Anderson.
Regards,
Sir Robert |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 12:44 am | | A Victorian millenarianist just doesn't lie. Oh, that's air tight, too.
No, you gotta do better, Robert.
Let me point out something that should be extemely obvious.
I can never prove to you that Anderson lied, exaggerated or stretched the truth about the identification.
I can't do it; it can't be done.
I also can't also prove to you that Anderson didn't have plumb pudding with Mary Kelly on occasion.
Frankly, I think you're arguing oranges and I'm arguing apples.
Bottom line? I don't accept the premise. I don't accept that Anderson is the most reliable Police official, nor that he had the best judgement, nor that because he was a Christian millenarianist he couldn't have the sin of pride.
But let me, for a second, accept your rather astonishing premise.
Anderson wouldn't lie, exaggerate, boast, or stretch the seams of his pet theory. The identification took place just as he said and Jack the Ripper was identified.
So tell me. Who was this witness that could unhesitatingly identify the murderer?
Why wasn't he dragged into court?
Why wouldn't a law abiding Jew co-operate with the police?
Why didn't Macnaghten accept the identification?
Why does Anderson talk about the 'non detection' of the Whitechapel murderer?
Why did Littlechild say 'He only thought he knew'?
Why are we stuck with a seeminlgy harmless, babbling lunatic that was at large for two years after Mary Kelly's brutal murder? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 02:11 am | | Does Robert totally miss the point?
The Windsor Magazine quote was first published by me, so no need to tell me how long it has been around. But he does not address the question as to why it has not been mentioned in the pro-Anderson books. The R. Harding Davis quote is similarly missing from such works (as is the Daily Chronicle piece for that matter). The point I was making is that this is a failure on the part of those espousing the Anderson theory to mention all the evidence so that readers get the full picture before reaching their own conclusions - whatever they may be.
It obviously is a reference to the 'Polish Jew theory'. Quite, the point being that it is only a theory.
The twisting of words, it seems to me, is on the pro-Anderson side, for the most obvious meaning is the one that should be preferred. And how is it 'pseudo' evidence? Or is it a case of Robert deciding what is 'pseudo' and what is valid?
Anyway, nice to chat, back to the new book for me I'm afraid. And the new material I have on Anderson will be on hold for the forseeable future.
Best Wishes to all,
Stewart |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 03:37 am | | Sir Robert,
I recognise and have the greatest respect for Martin Fido's ability.
It is obvious that he approaches the problem from a different perspective than I and perhaps many others do.Does that guarantee that the conclusions reached by him must prevail.
We are here discussing a murder case,and the fact that it occured over a hundred years ago,does not mean that we should abandon the basic teachings of crime detection.This case is a search for the truth,and though we may seek the truth in different ways,we can be guided by one important consideration,truth must be supported by fact.
There is no fact that supports an identification that disclosed the Whitechapel killer.
I will not be drawn into an arguement on whether one method of provenence is superior to another,or whether one man's word is worth more because of his historical importance.
As has been said before,you Sir Robert,should post your own theories and arguements,not those of someone else. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 07:44 am | | Hi All,
Perhaps I can help this debate.(Then again I'll probably just make it worse.)
Hi Sir Robert,
Do you think Sir Robert Anderson was Infallable? That he was NEVER mistaken? That he NEVER strectched the truth to suit his own needs, in whatever instance? That his fellow Officials all agreed with his identification or his Jack the Ripper Theory?
If you answer no to these questions, then you will understand what EVERYONE has been trying to say here. Anderson was not infalliable. He did make mistakes. He did stretch the truth from time to time. Not all of his fellow Officers agreed with his theory on Jack the Ripper. But hey, that just makes the guy HUMAN!
Harry, Stewart, R.J., and several others ARE NOT saying that Anderson is a BAD GUY, a LYING HYPOCRITE, or a BIGOT. All they are stating is, there is evidence of Anderson's mistakes, telling white lies, and that many of his peers didn't agree with his theory.
And the core of this debate is that many of the books that Champion the 'Anderson Suspect' do not present this evidence of Anderson's Humanity. Rather they make him out like some Messiah who's NEVER WRONG, only giving the evidence that is supportive of Anderson NEVER BEING WRONG, and NEVER giving the evidence that he made mistakes like everyone else, or that others disagreed with him.
That is simply what this debate is about. That Anderson wasn't Infallible and he shouldn't be touted as such.
Now of course if you feel that he was, which I'm SURE you don't, well then this debate will continue to go round and round, without any conclusion.
Regards,
Chris H.
P.S. The best way to do an analysis is to have ALL the facts, not just those that support your theories. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 10:38 am | | So many questions, so little time....sigh. Unfortunately this morning I must participate in the "solitary vice" that is work...
Let's start with this, and I post it knowing full well that it will be accused of not being "original research". I wasn't aware that the Casebook Message Boards were restricted to those doing original research.
I just started subscribing to RIPPEROLOGIST, and I was bold enough to forward some of the comments here to the email address provided for the editor, Paul Begg, and asking for his clarification. After all, it's his recent book that started this thread. Here's his reply, posted with his permission:
Dear Robert
Welcome to Ripperologist and I hope you will enjoy the magazine.
I understand what Stewart is saying, but I didn’t intend to either cite or debate the merits of every document in “The Definitive” and
the section of Kosminski was as long as it could reasonably be without a lot of what for new readers would be arcane argument.
This said, the sources you cite were excluded because their content was either irrelevant or ambiguous. In 'The Definitive I make
the case that Anderson's suspect was Aaron Kosminski. He is the only known K-anything-ski to have been committed to an asylum
and he fits all the criteria to be Anderson's suspect, including the ‘utterly unmentionable vices’ that also suggest he is identical to
Macnaghten's 'Kosminski'. Anderson says the suspect was identified in the asylum, Swanson that the identification was prior to
committal, but neither source allows us to infer that identification was significantly earlier or later than the date of committal. Aaron
Kosminski was committed in February 1891 and there is no known prior committal. Since the statement to Richard Harding David
pre-dates 1891 – and by some considerable margin! – it is therefore entirely irrelevant. The 1908 Daily News article is irrelevant for
the same reason. Anderson was recalling a meeting he had had with the Home Secretary following the Double Event, and he talks of it
in greater detail on pg.136 of ‘The Lighter Side of My Official Life’.
The omission of Major Griffiths' 1895 'Windsor Magazine' article is more complex. I find his text ambiguous and apparently
contradictory. if Anderson thought he knew who the Ripper was then efforts to identify the Ripper can't have been 'utterly abortive'
can they? So how do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements? And what did Major Griffiths' mean by 'a perfectly
plausible theory' – was he saying the witness was theoretical, or the suspect, or the identification? Or were they all hard fact and just
Anderson's conclusion that the suspect was the murderer theoretical? It’s very important that we actually understand what the
sources tell us, but whatever Griffiths meant, the word 'theory' does not mean Anderson’s conclusion was wrong, only that he lacked
the means to prove it – and that’s what Anderson said pretty much all along, that he had the moral proof, but lacked the legal proof.
How else could Major Griffiths have described that except as a theory – and a ‘perfectly plausible’ one to boot!
Personally, I rather think that Major Griffiths was possibly distinguishing between discovering a criminal through police work and
discovering the criminal by accident. Anderson himself draws this distinction on pg.219-220 of ‘The Lighter Side…’, describing the
arrest of a wanted man when policemen recognised him from his photograph as 'a sheer fluke' and comparing it to the discovery of a
young couple traced through police inquiries as 'due to legitimate police work.' Major Griffiths may simply have meant that legitimate
police work was 'utterly abortive' but that the police may nevertheless have 'got' the criminal, Anderson having ‘a perfectly plausible
theory’ as to who it was. But this is simply an effort to explain contradictory elements within the text.
What is perhaps the most important bit in Major Griffiths’ text, but so often missed, is the passing observation that the suspect was
‘temporarily at large’. If Griffiths meant that the suspect was ‘temporarily at large’ from an asylum then the suspect wasn’t Aaron
Kosminski, who doesn’t appear to have been committed to an asylum prior to 1891. And if he wasn’t ‘temporarily at large’ from an
asylum, where was he ‘temporarily at large’ from? And ‘hideous career cut short’ would seemingly place committal closer to the time
of the murders, again moving us away from Aaron Kosminski. But that’s a whole different question.
Sincerely
Paul |
Author: Chris Phillips
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 01:17 pm | | Sir Robert Anderson quoted Paul Begg:
What is perhaps the most important bit in Major Griffiths’ text, but so often missed, is the passing observation that the suspect was
‘temporarily at large’. If Griffiths meant that the suspect was ‘temporarily at large’ from an asylum then the suspect wasn’t Aaron
Kosminski, who doesn’t appear to have been committed to an asylum prior to 1891.
It's interesting that G. R. Sims makes a somewhat similar statement about a suspect having previously been in an asylum, and having been at liberty for at least a year. But that suspect is the "drowned doctor" one, not the Polish jew.
As Druitt is not known to have been in an asylum, presumably there is some confusion here, either with Sanders, the "third insane medical student", or perhaps Ostrog (who has been confused with Druitt elsewhere). |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 01:56 pm | | I would have the following comments to make regarding what Paul says above.
For an author to exclude any material that is relevant to the subject being discussed is a form of censorship by the author. For he fails to present his reader with the full picture and that is the argument being made here. Thus the picture he draws is one-sided and is presented with authorial bias.
Now, the idea that the sources cited have been excluded because the content was 'irrelevant' or 'ambiguous' is Paul's own spin on it. He should leave the decision as to whether the material is irrelevant or ambiguous to the intelligent reader. And this is the very criticism being levelled at his work - the case is presented selectively. The pieces cited are no more ambiguous than some of what Anderson himself said, and the parts interpreted by Paul as 'irrelevant' cast light on Anderson's character and may lessen the force of what he says.
Paul's interpretation of the R. Harding Davis piece is his own, but the piece is very relevant to Anderson's comments on the state of the Ripper case and should not be omitted - especially in a book calling itself 'definitive'. Also, it is to be noted that this piece on Anderson is missing from the A-Z, I wonder why? This comment cannot be 'entirely irrelevant', as Paul suggests, for those reading this thread have found it very interesting and useful. It has been argued in the past that Kosminski, as a suspect, appeared in the early part of the investigation, during the house to house inquiry, thus anything that Anderson has to say about the state of the case in the latter half of 1889 is most relevant. Again, I say, it is for the author to present the full picture and for the intelligent reader to make his own mind up.
The September 1, 1908 Daily Chronicle report of Anderson's comments on the Ripper case is also very relevant, for it contains a long paragraph on the Ripper case with Anderson discussing clues (of the wall writing and the clay pipe). Likewise, the 1895 Windsor Magazine piece is most relevant, not least of all for the date, preceding the 1901 piece by six years. Paul states that he finds Griffiths' text 'ambiguous and apparently contradictory', but, again, that's in his opinion and is a subjective interpretation. The intelligent reader should be able to judge for himself. Certainly historians such as Philip Sugden and Melvin Harris find it very relevant and so why should any author exclude it from his readers based on his own interpretation of it? As we see, Paul's objections to it are purely subjective and the paragraph above on this piece is a prime example of his verbal gymnastics. Paul resorts to a favourite ploy of his in this situation - a string of questions. Personally, I think that it is perfectly clear what Griffiths is saying, and so do many others I know. But my argument isn't with interpretation, it's with the fact that he does not even allow his readers to see the words in the first place. And how can they not be relevant when they discuss Anderson's thinking on the case and mention a suspect who was committed to an asylum. Such a suspect is germane to whole the Anderson debate.
If Paul wishes to enter into a vicarious debate with me here I have several queries on his book that I would like to discuss with him. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 05:18 pm | | Hi Stewart,
Mr. Begg was generous enough to give me a detailed answer to the question you asked, but had included a postscript making it clear that he didn’t have the time to enter into a prolonged debate, as he is in the midst of updating "The Uncensored Facts". Perhaps I should have included the P.S. in my original post, but I had hoped he'd read the thread and join in after all. I'm afraid it's a
"once off", at least as far as a vicarious debate is concerned.
"Anyway, nice to chat, back to the new book for me I'm afraid. And the new material I have on Anderson will be on hold for the forseeable future."
We'll miss the contributions from both of you, but I can imagine that it is difficult to find time to post as well as author a book.
Sir Robert |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 06:31 pm | | Robert,
Thank you for that.
By the way, I don't need reminding of what I've previously posted. If I have something relevant to post that does not involve circular and specious argument, then I'll find time to post it. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 03 February 2003 - 10:55 pm | | Tsk tsk.
And they told me "A soft answer turns away wrath."
Proverbs 15:1(rsv)
You know, Stewart, this may come as a shock to you, but sometimes, as a courtesy, it's nice to quote what indeed you're referring back to. Especially when posts get placed into different archives.
But that's just an Internet thang. No big deal, home boy. It's all good.
Love,
Sir Robert |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 12:17 am | | Hi Stewart,
I do not wish to intervene in the debate between you and Paul - but I do have a question about one of your posts.
You wrote:
"For an author to exclude any material that is relevant to the subject being discussed is a form of censorship by the author."
Is this necessarily a bad thing?
It seems to me every author needs to make a determination, especially when writing a broad overview of the case, which material must be used selectively.
If any writer, whether it be Begg, Sugden, or yourself, mentions any suspect in their text I do not find it necessary that the author mention every possible fact related to the suspect both pro and con.
For example, in your wonderful book "Letters From Hell," there is no mention of the fact that some have alleged that James Maybrick authored the Galasheils letters - though you print the text of that letter.
Your book makes no mention of Maybrick. And of all the suspects mentioned, you mention reasons to doubt their candidacy in all but two cases - Tumblety and Bury.
Now, I do not read this as bias - I think you made legitimate judgements in your opinion about what was and was not relevant. In fact, I don't disagree with your editorial decisions in any of those cases. Nonetheless, you did leave out information that some might have found relevant to the suspects you mentioned.
My point is that I do not think the purpose of Paul's book, or your's on the letters, was intended to express the solution to the case.
If Paul's recent book named Kosminski as Jack the Ripper - I would expect more detail pro and con about Kosminski's candidacy.
Your book on Tumblety is an example of the kind of balanced and measured proposal of a candidate - which is both persuasive in proposing your suspect while also being honest in recounting facts that mitigate against your theory.
I would not expect you in any subsequent work that mentions Tumblety to recount all the arguments against his candidacy.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 01:58 am | | Rich,
Thank you for the your comments, but you will not find mention of any of the fantasy suspects in my works that are more in the line of reference books. Only genuine contemporary or near-contemporary suspects are included, deliberately. In fact, it would need a complete book in itself to address all the 'invented' suspects.
In a separate chapter Gull and Clarence were mentioned as they were relevant to the Lees story that had significance, historically, to the letters discussed. I didn't think that I had given reasons to doubt Druitt's candidacy, unless my valid observation on Macnaghten is taken as such, but the man made mistakes about Druitt in his report. Had there been a sample of Kosminski's handwriting, then he, too, would have been included as a valid suspect. Unfortunately no such sample is known to exist.
The point is, of course, that selective omission of relevant material in a factual reference work should not happen. As regards the suspects mentioned in my book, they are included where there are decent samples of their handwriting, and only factual material is mentioned as to their viability. Of course, Benelius, Cream, and Deeming are easily dismissed as actually being the Ripper despite being long-standing 'suspects'. And the book proposes none as the Ripper. This book is primarily about letters, as the title indicates, thus a potted history of the suspects is given and a sample of the writing of each is given. In this context, and not being an argument for their candidacy, greater detail is not required.
We are not talking 'every possible fact', we are talking relevant facts. And when such great emphasis is put on a single source, Anderson, then all relevant material to him should be quoted in order for a balanced assessment of his reliability to be made.
However, each book must stand on its own merits and the intelligent reader must decide for himself how it is presented and the relevance of the material it contains.
Robert, mild irritation - maybe, wrath, well actually no.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 04 February 2003 - 10:00 am | | Hi Stewart,
Thanks for your reply - I think that is both a bedeviling and intriguing aspect of writing history! We all have our own perspectives as to relevance.
Paul believes much of the material you cite as irrelevant or ambiguous - therefore he does not include it. I think his editorial decisions are probably well intentioned.
As you know, some Ripperologists have dismissed your suspect because of his sexuality. In fact, on a documentary in which both you and Martin Fido appeared, I was shocked by Mr. Fido's dismissal of Tumblety as a viable suspect.
Fido asserted that Tumblety was a homosexual and therefore he would not murder women since homosexual serial killers only kill other men. I didn't understand how he could come to the conclusion that Tumblety was homosexual rather than bisexual - or that he knows that no homosexual ever was a serial killer of women (the Cleveland Torso killer murdered both men and woman - does that mean we "know" he/she was bisexual?).
I think the disagreement is about what is relevant and what is not. I think Begg feels he has three sources for the Kosminski suspect and doesn't think it important to concentrate on the failings of one source, Anderson, in areas unrelated to the Ripper case.
You make a very strong contrary view - though I think either way it is a debatable point.
Regards,
Rich |
|
|
|
|
