Walter Dew's section on JtR in his book

[Stephen Thomas]

WHOSE WORD?
Anderson"s that he knew who the ripper was?
or
Dew"s who didnt believe ANYONE knew who the Ripper was and stated this in his autobiography.
or
Inspector Abberline very much present at the time but who did not talk about the room being awash with blood but was in that room examining evidence.But then he wasnt in the business of selling his autobiography was he?Btw---he too didnt believe anyone knew who the ripper was .

One final word.The Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police,Major Smith, [there at the time of the ripper murders] and a witness of the crime scene of the murder of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, inferred that Robert Anderson lied about knowing who the ripper was and where he lived too----"nobody ever knew who Jack the Ripper was or where he lived,he had us completely beat" he wrote in 1910.
Best Wishes

Hi Norma

But isn't it possible that Anderson WAS telling the truth in this instance and that the rest were either lying or weren't 'in the loop' as regards a cover-up?

He may well have been lying, of course, but I'd say it's POSSIBLE that he wasn't.

Nice to see you again at the Conference.

Stephen

[robhouse]

Simon,

I do not particularly care to shoot you down in flames, but I would argue that it is you who want to shoot Anderson down in flames. I am merely providing a counter argument to points which you keep presenting to "strengthen" your case.

Your primary tactic, as I am sure you know, is called "discrediting the witness." (See http://intotheawkward.blogspot.com/2...g-witness.html for example) --- "In court, trial attorneys try to paint the other team's witness as confused, biased, and inconsistent in order to further the case of their own client..."

I think that instead of strengthening your case, you are instead weakening it, thus revealing that the true motivation behind such attacks is to demonize Anderson since you don't like what he said about the Ripper, and since it differs from your own theories.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

If you really want to shoot me down in flames, instead of cheap jibes why not try presenting one single solitary fact in support of [a] Kosminski being the Ripper and [b] that he and Anderson's unnamed Polish Jew might have been one and the same person?

No rush. I can wait.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hi Simon,

As usual I have little idea of what you are talking about.

(By the way, I wrote murderer, then looked again, and changed it to criminal).

In any case, you are essentially comparing Anderson to a criminal, right? So just so I understand your argument, I think that what you mean is that the fact that Anderson was religious does not necessarily have any bearing on whether or not he was a moral person... for example, one who was disinclined to lie, etc. I have not actually read Anderson's religious books, so I don't really know what he said about the morality of lying for example. Still, I do not see how this quote by Littlechild is in any way relevant to anything...

"If you're intent on condemning a man [Kosminski] to eternal damnation, you'd first better have a watertight case against him rather than just some spurious theorizing. You see, unlike the pro-Anderson/Kosminski-was-the-Ripper lobby I actually have a barrel, and it's deeper than I at first thought."

Again... what? Are you referring to me or Anderson? I think Anderson admitted that they did not have a watertight case against Kozminski... at least not watertight from a legal standpoint. Nor do I have a watertight case against Kozminski. By the way, I am not part of any lobby.

"I actually have a barrel, and it's deeper than I at first thought" --- ha ha ha.. You are starting to sound like AP Wolf. That rules.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

I'm pleased to have provided you with a few moments of mirth.

I would suggest that Littlechild's own experiences were his authority, and the last time I looked 1893 was still in the LVP. I don't believe that I or Littlechild wrote anything about religious murderers. Nor did I postulate a thesis. It was merely my reaction to a post I had read which suggested that a close reading of Anderson's theology rules out his ever having stretched or concealed the truth.

Now that really is funny.

If you're intent on condemning a man [Kosminski] to eternal damnation, you'd first better have a watertight case against him rather than just some spurious theorizing. You see, unlike the pro-Anderson/Kosminski-was-the-Ripper lobby I actually have a barrel, and it's deeper than I at first thought.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Norma,

You said: "You and others also talk about taking the word of people"who were there at the time". WHOSE WORD? Anderson"s that he knew who the ripper was? or Dew"s who didnt believe ANYONE knew who the Ripper was and stated this in his autobiography. or Inspector Abberline very much present at the time but who did not talk about the room being awash with blood but was in that room examining evidence.But then he wasnt in the business of selling his autobiography was he?Btw---he too didnt believe anyone knew who the ripper was ."

First of all, I think Pontius was referring to the subject in question which was the state of Kelly's room, and the rather ridiculous point under discussion which is that Anderson "exaggerated" the amount of blood in the room—this being pointed out as merely another facet in the "case" against Anderson to prove he was a liar, a braggart etc. Same with Simon's post regarding religious murderers, this is all simply part of the demonization process.

You turn this around and now start talking about the fact that Anderson said he knew who the Ripper was... Dew admitted he did not etc, Abberline said such and such. While at the very least, this demonstrates your tendency to treat Abberline or anyone who disagreed with Anderson like a saint, it also ignores the fact that Anderson (and Swanson) probably knew much more about Kozminski than people like Dew and Abberline (or even major smith for that matter).

Nothing in your post actually addresses Pontius's very true statement, which is that it is rather ridiculous for people to sit back in their armchairs 120 years after the fact, and presume to know more about the state of Kelly's room than Anderson, who was actually IN IT. It is also, incidentally rather ridiculous to claim that Anderson exaggerated in this description, since I am quite sure the state of Kelly's room was horrifying in the extreme.

Rob H

[robhouse]

"And just in case anyone might be thinking that during the LVP religiosity was an unfailing insight as to a person's character, here's what Inspector Littlechild had to say on the subject."

I am sorry, I find this post to be totally hilarious. First, who is Littlechild to be some sort of expert on the effect of "religiosity" on a person's character? And what is the point of noting "during the LVP"?

I assume that what you are trying to suggest is that even though Anderson was an extremely religious person, that does not mean that he was a good person, prone to telling the truth etc. You are essentially trying to make a point by comparing Anderson—as a religious person who travelled extensively around Ireland preaching the gospel, etc—to a criminal.

I think this is really one of the funniest posts I have ever read on casebook. Simon, you seem to have the form correct (postulate a thesis however absurd, then support said thesis with a quote, preferably by a Ripper "regular", someone with the weight of authority like Littlechild), but I don't think your logic makes any sense.

You guys really seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel lately.

Rob H

[Pontius2000]

Make of that what you will but dont expect unquestioning acceptance on here that everything Anderson said or did was the "truth".It was not.

You and others also talk about taking the word of people"who were there at the time".
WHOSE WORD?
Anderson"s that he knew who the ripper was?
or
Dew"s who didnt believe ANYONE knew who the Ripper was and stated this in his autobiography.
or
Inspector Abberline very much present at the time but who did not talk about the room being awash with blood but was in that room examining evidence.But then he wasnt in the business of selling his autobiography was he?Btw---he too didnt believe anyone knew who the ripper was .

One final word.The Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police,Major Smith, [there at the time of the ripper murders] and a witness of the crime scene of the murder of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, inferred that Robert Anderson lied about knowing who the ripper was and where he lived too----"nobody ever knew who Jack the Ripper was or where he lived,he had us completely beat" he wrote in 1910.
Best Wishes

Norma

I didn't say everything ever said was the truth or correct. but it's pretty bold to take everything said out to be a wholesale lie too. no, I don't think anyone knew who JtR was. but looking at the MJK photos and reading the reports, I think the description "blood was everywhere" was a pretty good one. does that mean that blood was on every square inch of the room? no. does that mean these people were lying? no. If I was to get into a car accident and bust my nose on the steering wheel, I'd probably say "blood was everywhere". does that mean I'm a liar since blood didn't cover every part of the car?

this woman had pretty much every organ removed. her face, arms, and legs were slashed. I'm not going to call a guy a liar for saying, "blood was everywhere." I'm also not going to call a guy a liar who says he was there when the naysayers have absolutely no proof that he wasn't there and he has no reason to lie. as I said before, if he really wanted to lie about being at a crime scene, we could've said he was at multiple scenes.

[Pontius2000]

Dew was never in the room at Miller's Court.

and you know this how? you were there?

[Scott Nelson]

Dew was never in the room at Miller's Court.

[Natalie Severn]

ok. a 2 foot square pool of blood is a pretty good size pool for such a small room. you do realize that the second photo from inside the room was taken from that side of the bed. and it probably took at least two people on that side of the bed to push the bed out the way and set up the camera. do you think think it was the brass that was doing that, or someone lower on the police ladder, like Dew? I'd say Dew. but whoever it was on that side of the bed, their foot would've been inches from the pool of blood. I don't think it's a stretch to think that someone may have gotten their foot in it considering they WERE on that side of the bed.

I just don't understand how we've spent 120+ years speculating on the crimes, yet we're so quick to call people liars who at the very least WERE THERE.

Hi Pontious,
Perhaps you didnt know this but the senior Scotland Yard officer and Spymaster, Sir Robert Anderson ,was a self confessed "fabricator" of the truth or "defamer of character" ---and thats putting it mildly.For he confessed to having deliberately run a series of articles in The Times newspaper of 1887 alongside those of the self confessed forger,Richard Pigott, branding the Irish Home Rule MP ,Charles Parnell to be " complicit "in "terrorism" which was in direct opposition to what Charles Parnell was actually doing viz desperately trying to put an end to terrorism in Northern Ireland through the Parliamentary Democratic process .Needless to say his activity destroyed all hope of Home Rule through the peaceful parliamentary process as well as putting the nail firmly in Parnell"s coffin.So for me at anyrate,Anderson is a deeply complex man ,quite unscrupulous when he felt the need and who stooped to any means necessary to get what he wanted , prove what he wanted to prove,protect what he wanted to protect. I believe that this included protecting his reputation in his autobiography,"the Lighter Years--"as the Principal Scotland Yard Police Chief "during the hunt for Jack the Ripper"---[but who never caught the ripper]----so how to put the best light on this? Why tell"em you knew who it was but he couldnt be brought to trial!
Moreover when in 1910 he admitted to having written those articles in The Times newspaper purely to defame the character of a leading MP although this in itself was bad enough it was also evident to both sides of the House of Commons and to the legal system too,that his self confessed action was completely contrary to the rules and traditions of the civil service.

Make of that what you will but dont expect unquestioning acceptance on here that everything Anderson said or did was the "truth".It was not.

You and others also talk about taking the word of people"who were there at the time".
WHOSE WORD?
Anderson"s that he knew who the ripper was?
or
Dew"s who didnt believe ANYONE knew who the Ripper was and stated this in his autobiography.
or
Inspector Abberline very much present at the time but who did not talk about the room being awash with blood but was in that room examining evidence.But then he wasnt in the business of selling his autobiography was he?Btw---he too didnt believe anyone knew who the ripper was .

One final word.The Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police,Major Smith, [there at the time of the ripper murders] and a witness of the crime scene of the murder of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, inferred that Robert Anderson lied about knowing who the ripper was and where he lived too----"nobody ever knew who Jack the Ripper was or where he lived,he had us completely beat" he wrote in 1910.
Best Wishes

Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Two points.

Let's not forget that it was a policeman who first told us that Kelly's intestines were festooned like festive decorations around Room 13.

And just in case anyone might be thinking that during the LVP religiosity was an unfailing insight as to a person's character, here's what Inspector Littlechild had to say on the subject.

Boston Investigator, 12th July 1893—



Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

"I just don't understand how we've spent 120+ years speculating on the crimes, yet we're so quick to call people liars who at the very least WERE THERE."

Quite right.

[Pontius2000]

ok. a 2 foot square pool of blood is a pretty good size pool for such a small room. you do realize that the second photo from inside the room was taken from that side of the bed. and it probably took at least two people on that side of the bed to push the bed out the way and set up the camera. do you think think it was the brass that was doing that, or someone lower on the police ladder, like Dew? I'd say Dew. but whoever it was on that side of the bed, their foot would've been inches from the pool of blood. I don't think it's a stretch to think that someone may have gotten their foot in it considering they WERE on that side of the bed.

I just don't understand how we've spent 120+ years speculating on the crimes, yet we're so quick to call people liars who at the very least WERE THERE.

[Roy Corduroy]

Blood on the Floor

I meant that, given the sight it must have been, Anderson didn't "dramatized", or very slightly.

Hi David,

Yes I agree with you.

Bond: on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square.
Anderson: blood was on the floor
Dew: All these things I saw after I had slipped and fallen on the awfulness of that floor.

Roy