To put what Anderson said into context it is only fair to quote the preceding paragraph also.
'I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence.
In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.'
To me the meaning is clear, put simply the murderer was identified and was a Polish Jew, a definitely ascertained fact.
Others may put their own interpretation on it, but I see this as nothing more than an exercise in semantics.
Thanks for posting the above Stewart, right from the Book even......
Anderson was probably right about the enterprising journalist not that we can extrapolate much from that....
I find the term unmentionable vices interesting, which perhaps suggests other horrors besides the murder and mutilation we are all aware of........does this infer that he knew other things?
Or is this simply the old masturbation story rearing its ugly head again (no pun intended)...
Hi Greg, I think it's the latter ('rearing it's ugly head' as you say).
I think the following is pretty clear from chapter 9:
The house to house search
1) They were looking for a man who lived alone or had premises that he could use in the immediate vicinity.
2) They satisfied themselves that they checked out every such man and there was nothing to implicate any of them.
3) They concluded that he must live with people.
4) They concluded that he must be a Polish Jew, otherwise he would have been shopped by those people.
It seems to me that the house to house search did not uncover any particular individual.
1) Anderson does not state why this man was taken in for identification.
2) The identification proved their conclusions to be correct as the man identified was a Polish Jew.
3) Anderson does not think of this man as a mere suspect. In the eyes of Anderson, he is Jack the Ripper. Given the powers of the French police, he would have been brought to justice.