Walter Dew's section on JtR in his book

[Natalie Severn]

Chris ,I do see the point you are making.
I would be interested in what you know about Anderson"s theological activities-on a suitable thread ofcourse.
It seems to me that Anderson may have had a touch of " religious mania".He certainly has a religious fanaticism , writing all those religious tracts and his strict interpretation of biblical matters,blood sacrifices etc.Its like once he has fixed his beam on something,he becomes very inflexible and a scary.It gives me the spooks that stuff about devils and blood and the room and sacrifice and so on.

[Chris]

I was talking about Dew's autobiography which IS the context of the thread.

No, Natalie, you wrote:
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 ...

That was what I was responding to. I quoted it in my post to make that clear.

But you are quite right that all of this stuff about Anderson is off-topic.

[Natalie Severn]

It's hardly surprising that Anderson's emphasis is on blood. He's discussing the atonement - a blood sacrifice. That's what the whole chapter is about.

The point I'm making is that you are wide of the mark with your suggestion that Anderson's book was a "policeman's autobiography" and that he was trying to spice it up to make it more attractive to a publisher.

It wasn't a "policeman's autobiography" at all. It was a theological work, originally published in 1870, and had already gone through five editions when this passage was inserted. Of course this isn't meant to be an objective, clinical description of a crime scene, but Anderson's intention is clearly theological, not sensationalistic.

Chris,
We seem to be chopping about here.I was talking about Dew's autobiography which IS the context of the thread.
But fine.Anderson is talking about Christianity and blood sacrifice or planet x!
Point taken,
Best Wishes
Norma

[Chris]

A reading of the doctors reports describes the room in simple, clear, factual language.This objectivity is absent in both Dew"s and Anderson"s lurid descriptions where the imagery is flooded with blood and gore.

It's hardly surprising that Anderson's emphasis is on blood. He's discussing the atonement - a blood sacrifice. That's what the whole chapter is about.

The point I'm making is that you are wide of the mark with your suggestion that Anderson's book was a "policeman's autobiography" and that he was trying to spice it up to make it more attractive to a publisher.

It wasn't a "policeman's autobiography" at all. It was a theological work, originally published in 1870, and had already gone through five editions when this passage was inserted. Of course this isn't meant to be an objective, clinical description of a crime scene, but Anderson's intention is clearly theological, not sensationalistic.

[Natalie Severn]

Chris,
A reading of the doctors reports describes the room in simple, clear, factual language.This objectivity is absent in both Dew"s and Anderson"s lurid descriptions where the imagery is flooded with blood and gore.

[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

[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?

[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?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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"!