Walter Dew's section on JtR in his book

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

right, but Anderson's words about Miller's Court hardly illustrate this "tendendy to dramatise", etc.

Oh, but I think they do, Dave... à chacun son goût, I suppose.

[DVV]

More probably a péché véniel, for the sinner we're talking of.

Amitiés,
David

[Roy Corduroy]

Dear Monsieurs de la France -

Dramatize compared to what? We can't make up standards as we go of how someone should have writen their memoirs a hundred years ago.

Of course there was blood on the floor. Common sense tells you that, but we have Anderson and Bond confirming what Dew said.

Roy

[DVV]

Hi Roy,

I meant that, given the sight it must have been, Anderson didn't "dramatized", or very slightly.
Just two years ago, an "essay" was still telling that there were organs on the ceiling... Much worse, if I compare to Anderson words.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,

Here's the full context of Anderson's description of Room 13, from Chapter 17 of "The Gospel and its Ministry". The book was originally written in 1876, and the first post-Millers Court edition I can find is 1893.

Death was already past, and the sprinkled blood was the memorial of that death. And this too was the significance of the sprinkled blood within the veil, which had continuing efficacy to cleanse from sin. How can any one picture to himself those foul, black stains upon the golden mercy-seat, and yet imagine that they represented life in its activities, presented in joyful service to God! If such were the teaching, is it possible to conceive any symbolism more inapt? Imagine a bereaved mother or wife bedaubing her home with the blood of a dead child or husband in order to keep fresh in her heart the great fact and truth of life!


The sight of a room thus stained will not easily fade from my memory. It was the scene of the last and most fiendish of the crimes known as the "Whitechapel murders" in London. Blood was on the furniture, blood was on the floor, blood was on the walls, blood was everywhere. Did this speak to me of life? Yes, but of life gone, of life destroyed, and, therefore, of that which is the very antithesis of life. Every blood-stain in that horrid room spoke of death.

And here I ask the question, If God intended to teach the truth that the sinner could approach Him. Only on the ground of death, could divine wisdom find a fitter symbol than that the priest should carry with him into His presence the blood of the Vicarious sacrifice? If, on the other hand, any one seeks thus to enforce the doctrine which these teachers would connect with it, we may well exclaim, Could perverted ingenuity suggest an imagery more incongruous and false! To teach that poured out, putrefying blood represents not death but life, is not only a departure from the truth of Scripture, but an outrage upon the commonest instincts of mankind.

Regards,

Simon

Many Thanks for posting this Simon.It really is hellfire and damnation stuff------not much hope for you getting past St Peter if you were a poor bloke like Kosminski who was given to "solitary vices" or had any other than a heterosexual orientation in Robert Anderson"s world !
Though one never really knows ! The 59 year old Irish protestant MP, Iris Robinson ,wife of Ireland"s first minister Peter Robinson both extreme Christians very busy attempting to" clean up" the morals of Northern Ireland and quoting at length similar biblical passages to the one above ,startled the world when the other day she admitted her affair with a 19 year old to whom she had passed £50,000-not of her own money!
Food for thought.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Scott Nelson]

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

[Pontius2000]

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

and you know this how? you were there?

[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.

[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

[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