Walter Dew's section on JtR in his book

[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]

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,

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]

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

[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

[Natalie Severn]

Rob,
As there is no evidence whatsoever that Aaron Kosminski had ever been violent or ever had any conviction for violence either prior to admission to Colney Hatch or thereafter,I think his candidacy for Jack the Ripper to be one of the more ludicrous ever thought up.In all his long years in mental health institutions,there is no evidence in any of the hospital notes that Aaron Kosminski had ever been considered a "danger to others"--- in fact from the start they referred to him as "harmless".
In my view Anderson"s extreme version of Protestantism probably did play a part in his belief that a Polish born Immigrant Jew such as Aaron Kosminski,was Jack the Ripper.Anderson referred to his suspect as someone about whom "it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute".Well Aaron Kosminski definitely had a mental health problem and some kind of mastubatory compulsory disorder.But his medical notes refer to his aural and visual hallucinations about his belief in a Universal instinct that was guiding him etc---not about some diabolical killer instinct.
Anderson added that it was a remarkable fact that the low class Jews in the East End belonged to a special category of person who would not give up one of their number to "Gentile justice".
Strong words and they got him into a lot of trouble---from those who disagreed vehemently with him about his "low class Polish Jew" suspect ------and who were also "there at the time"!

[Natalie Severn]

hi Stephen,
Think about where and when Anderson"s theory "took off" was presented to the world [after a low key spin in Blackwoods].It was in 1910 when he published his autobiography, "The Lighter Side of My Official Life". Most of it covers his work in the [Irish] Special Branch.But there is a key section on the Ripper ,and I say key because it was Anderson,as you know,who had charge of the ripper investigation.Now ask yourself what happened.The answer ofcourse is that the Ripper was never caught.
I suspect that neither the publishers or Robert Anderson were particularly happy to leave it like that-----so what would be the best way to "present" the matter? So how about:" they got him alright,he was "caged up in an asylum" [but died soon after]---and a more disgusting vile creature was never born etc etc---protected by the Jews he was who do that sort of thing for their own you know....." etc etc[ no matter that Aaron was actually sitting large as life ,being cared for at Leavesdon!
See you soon at WS mtg.
Best
Norma

[jason_c]

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.

He never mentions anything as insignificant as solitary vices. From what I can comprehend he is disavowing the arguement of sacrificing "sinners" by "priests" in order to cleanse sinners before God. A reasonable "modern" religious arguement.

Or are you in favour of religious sacrifice?

Yes, a religious statement. However, there is no hell and damnation in those paragraphs.

[Natalie Severn]

Jason,
Well Macnaghten revealed the name Kosminski and stated he was a Polish Jew

..........He had become ill owing to many years indulgence in "solitary" vices.

The sentence used by Anderson uses similar wording:"his utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than those of a brute"

In his medical notes there is a note about the "supposed" cause for his mental illness and after this comes the word "unknown" , after which,in red, are printed the words "self abuse".

This then corresponds to what is being said by Macnaghten and Anderson : That some sort of obsessive masturbatory behaviour had been going on BUT that actually seems to have stopped when he was admitted for mental health care in Colney Hatch.Makes you wonder if his family were over anxious about his pocket billiards habits.

I dont know what you are talking about when you say am I in favour of religious sacrifice.I have no interest in any such addle headed nonsense thankyou very much!



Macnaghten adds that Kosminski had strong homicidal tendencies---but there is absolutely no hint of this in any of the medical reports that have been unearthed from Colney Hatch or Leavesdon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

I know all about courtroom antics and lamp-dimming.

I am not on a mission to shoot Anderson down in flames. In fact I am quite prepared to believe that the truth dropped like pearls from his lips, that his unnamed Polish Jew was Aaron Kosminski, who in turn was the Ripper. But, like any other reasonable person, in order to believe that I would like some evidence to substantiate the premise. I'm not willing to accept it on faith when there is such an overwhelming weight of discernible evidence to suggest otherwise.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

I am not on a mission to shoot Anderson down in flames. In fact I am quite prepared to believe that the truth dropped like pearls from his lips, that his unnamed Polish Jew was Aaron Kosminski, who in turn was the Ripper. But, like any other reasonable person, in order to believe that I would like some evidence to substantiate the premise. I'm not willing to accept it on faith when there is such an overwhelming weight of discernible evidence to suggest otherwise.

There are two different questions here.

One is whether Aaron Kozminski was the Ripper. I think that's unlikely.

The other is whether Aaron Kozminski was Anderson's suspect. I think that there's very little reason to doubt that. If you think there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it would be interesting to see it - but preferably not on a thread about Walter Dew.

[DVV]

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

Hi Rob,

I don't believe for a moment that Anderson told the truth about the Ripper being identified, caged, etc.

But you're right, simply right, here.
I can't see anything wrong in Anderson's words about Mary's room. They are decent.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Rob,

I don't believe for a moment that Anderson told the truth about the Ripper being identified, caged, etc.

But you're right, simply right, here.
I can't see anything wrong in Anderson's words about Mary's room. They are decent.

Amitiés,
David

On the other hand David,if you "sex things up" as they say,and make things even bloodier, wouldnt publisher"s be a lot happier? Wasnt it ,after all,very much in both Walter Dew"s and Robert Anderson"s interests to say what they said,the way that they said it?
I mean how would it have looked to a publisher preparing to sell these ex-policemen"s autobiography if,in the case of Anderson he had said ,"Well,even though I was technically in charge of the case in September and October 1888, I was ofcourse in Paris when the first four murders in the series were committed, so neither Dr Bond or I saw the bodies "in situ" of the first four victims so we are not really in a position to comment on the skills or otherwise performed by the murderer on those victims or on knife wounds etc! The sole exception being Mary Kelly,the last in the series [we think] whose body was so butchered we couldnt make head nor tail of it.
Or if Walter Dew had described the room as Abberline described it ,who, by the way was most definitely "there at the time" and makes no mention at all of a room with blood everywhere in his inquest evidence.Ditto Dr Phillips,who, though he did refer to a "large quantity of blood under the bedstead"-as per Sam"s diagram, makes no mention of having "slipped on the floor" or any other lurid or bloody description of that room.
If you were a publisher wouldnt you prefer to hear about the slippery floor and the room awash with blood? But isnt it so much better to pay attention to the detail given by those we know for certain were "there at the time" and gave their evidence under oath?

[Chris]

On the other hand David,if you "sex things up" as they say,and make things even bloodier, wouldnt publisher"s be a lot happier? ...
I mean how would it have looked to a publisher preparing to sell these ex-policemen"s autobiography if,in the case of Anderson he had said ...

But we're not talking about a policeman's autobiography here - we're talking about a very short passage inserted in a theological work which had already gone through five editions. I think we can be sure that no one was thinking about improving the book's marketability.

Surely there's enough substantive evidence about the accuracy of Anderson's recollections to discuss, without pressing stuff like this into service?

[DVV]

Hi Norma,

I understand what you mean, find it a good point, but does it apply to Anderson in this case?
His words, imo, simply express the butchery it has been.

Anderson doesn't give details about the organs and where they were placed, etc, although it would have been perfectly true...and much worse to write and read, much more attractive from a "gore point of view".

Amitiés toujours,
David