Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting

I don't recall if I have posted this before or not, but Anderson subscribed to a press cutting service, they scoured all the papers and sent any mention of his name in the newspapers to him. Interesting, I thought -

[Natalie Severn]

Reasonable? Nothing reasonable or fair about making things up as you go along about Kosminski,a man you seem to know nothing about whatsoever.

[Jeff Leahy]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;47614]

There is no evidence that he did not 'revel in blood' at some point. Indeed if you speculate that Aaron was 'Jack the Ripper' it seems pretty likely that he 'reveled in blood' on at least six occasions. Aaron’s apparent lack of violence once 'in- prisoned' is consistent with what we know of Schizophrenics.

Surely speculating about what Anderson did or did not know in 1892 is what we are all doing? Pirate What? Seriously?

Well ofcourse if you Pirate, are just in the business of inventing "Fairy Tales" why not join a fiction thread?

Hold on a minute Norma. I was invited to speculate on what Anderson meant.

I pointed out that we don't know the exact question Anderson was responding too. And I offered some opinion and speculation. Which I thought fair and reasonable.

It certainly is not me that has tried to make personal comments. Perhaps if we could all just stay, on topic.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

'Pirate'

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;47614]

There is no evidence that he did not 'revel in blood' at some point. Indeed if you speculate that Aaron was 'Jack the Ripper' it seems pretty likely that he 'reveled in blood' on at least six occasions. Aaron’s apparent lack of violence once 'in- prisoned' is consistent with what we know of Schizophrenics.
Surely speculating about what Anderson did or did not know in 1892 is what we are all doing?
Pirate
Well ofcourse if you are just in the business of inventing "Fairy Tales" why not join a fiction thread?

Norma, I think that you will have to accept the fact that 'Pirate' has been irretrievably brainwashed and leave it at that.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;47602]There is no evidence that he did not 'revel in blood' at some point. Indeed if you speculate that Aaron was 'Jack the Ripper' it seems pretty likely that he 'reveled in blood' on at least six occasions. Aaron’s apparent lack of violence once 'in- prisoned' is consistent with what we know of Schizophrenics.



Surely speculating about what Anderson did or did not know in 1892 is what we are all doing?

Pirate



What? Seriously?

Well ofcourse if you Pirate, are just in the business of inventing "Fairy Tales" why not join a fiction thread?

[Stewart P Evans]

Agree

I think this post should be over on the pub talk section Stewart..its not anderson related. Its more clownish.

I agree with you, in fact I think it's the best place for any post with your name on it. But I don't have the power to move posts.

[Jeff Leahy]

You know, I was just beginning to enjoy myself, then this clown 'Pirate Jack' turned up...

I think this post should be over on the pub talk section Stewart..its not anderson related. Its more clownish.

[Natalie Severn]

Martin,
Anderson appears to have made quite a few enemies actually,quite apart from Harcourt ,Jenkinson ,Smith etc.
Not only that but History suggests that it was the 1910 "Blackwood"s magazine articles" and later autobiography of "Robert Anderson",not the 1910 autobiography of "Henry Smith" that drew criticism for its " boastfulness".
"Boastfulness" was the term used by Winston Churchill then Home Secretary.He accused Robert Anderson of "gross boastfulness,"[and a lot worse] excused only by ,"the garrulous and inaccurate indiscretion of advancing years.....I have thought it my duty to call on Sir Robert Anderson to restore documents which are the property of the public".[House of Commons 21 April 1910]
---------[apparently Anderson sometimes engaged in the" pilfering" of certain important public documents -----------!]

[Stewart P Evans]

Enjoy

You know, I was just beginning to enjoy myself, then this clown 'Pirate Jack' turned up...

[Jeff Leahy]

NO,it most definitely is not consistent with anything currently known about Aaron Kosminski.
There is no evidence that Aaron Kosminski was violent,throughout the entire 30 years he was held in an asylum.
There is no evidence that he liked to "revel in blood" either.

There is no evidence that he did not 'revel in blood' at some point. Indeed if you speculate that Aaron was 'Jack the Ripper' it seems pretty likely that he 'reveled in blood' on at least six occasions. Aaron’s apparent lack of violence once 'in- prisoned' is consistent with what we know of Schizophrenics.

There are reports that he didnt like to work, wash or eat at table and that he believed he was being "guided" by a "universal instinct".We know his mental health deteriorated over the years but at no point do any of the records that have surfaced indicate that he was violent or interested in bloodshed.Staff seemed at pains in fact ,to point out he was harmless.

He took a dog for a walk in Cheapside in 1889, so at this point was not," incarcerated" either.

Can we stick with what we know from records please,rather than engage in such wild speculation about this person?
Thanks
Norma

Surely speculating about what Anderson did or did not know in 1892 is what we are all doing?

Pirate

PS Any chance of a Podcast with the Norder? now that would make interesting listening

[Stewart P Evans]

Drivel

Now it is you that is speculating. Why didn't Anderson tell the journalist about his theory? and you are speculating that the 'caged asylum' theory he vioces in 1895 wasn't formed in 1892? We don't know that?
There are surely many reasons why Anderson might not have said that he had a perfectly plausible theory in 1892.
To speculate: Perhaps he didn't want to raise any difficult questions at this point or perhaps he didn't wish to raise questions he wasn't at liberty to answer at this time. Anderson was still in office, the suspect had never been charged. Anderson may not have trusted the journalist (some people don't) Perhaps Anderson didn't trust the people coming to him with 'Fads and theories' Either way its all just opinion and speculation.
Pirate

No, you are 'postulating the thought processes of others.' I did not speculate that the 'caged asylum' theory, as you put it, was not formed in 1892. In fact, I asked the question as to why Anderson should not have voiced it - a totally different thing. I did indicate, of course, that failure to mention it was supportive of a particular theory evolving.

I did state the counter that he may not have been able to describe it at that time (for whatever reason), some time ago, I always allow for all possibilities - something that you appear incapable of. Of course it's speculation and opinion, have I ever said it wasn't. Please read and internalise the content of past posts before coming on here with more drivel.

[Natalie Severn]

Anderson says "there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders"

Can we not make an assumption that the question had something to do with "Fads and Theories"

What do you say to peoples 'Fads and Theories" ?

Anderson produces a photo and says look at this....

It is clearly the act of a 'maniac revelling in blood'

Is this not completely consistent with the murders having been committed by Aaron Kosminski?


Pirate

NO,it most definitely is not consistent with anything currently known about Aaron Kosminski.
There is no evidence that Aaron Kosminski was violent,throughout the entire 30 years he was held in an asylum.
There is no evidence that he liked to "revel in blood" either.

There are reports that he didnt like to work, wash or eat at table and that he believed he was being "guided" by a "universal instinct".We know his mental health deteriorated over the years but at no point do any of the records that have surfaced indicate that he was violent or interested in bloodshed.Staff seemed at pains in fact ,to point out he was harmless.

He took a dog for a walk in Cheapside in 1889, so at this point was not," incarcerated" either.

Can we stick with what we know from records please,rather than engage in such wild speculation about this person?
Thanks
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

I certainly don't need you to interpret wording for me. I did not say that 'undiscovered crimes' were Anderson's words. I said that the reporter was discussing them in that context. And, indeed, they were unsolved crimes.

If by unsolved crime you mean that no one was bought to justice, thats cool.

You will note that I carefully explained my meaning and raised the question as to why Anderson hadn't stated his belief that the killer had had his 'hideous career cut short by committal to an asylum', a theory that he was happy to air in 1895. I also don't disagree that his words cannot be construed as being at odds with his later proclamations. Although, as I have explained, they more easily fit with the development of a mere theory in the early 1890s that becomes a 'definitely ascertained fact' in 1910.

Now it is you that is speculating. Why didn't Anderson tell the journalist about his theory? and you are speculating that the 'caged asylum' theory he vioces in 1895 wasn't formed in 1892? We don't know that?

There are surely many reasons why Anderson might not have said that he had a perfectly plausible theory in 1892.

To speculate: Perhaps he didn't want to raise any difficult questions at this point or perhaps he didn't wish to raise questions he wasn't at liberty to answer at this time. Anderson was still in office, the suspect had never been charged. Anderson may not have trusted the journalist (some people don't) Perhaps Anderson didn't trust the people coming to him with 'Fads and theories' Either way its all just opinion and speculation.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

The Globe

The following interview with Anderson appeared in The Globe of March 7, 1910, as a result of his article in Blackwood's -

[Dan Norder]

We’ve been hearing on a fairly regular basis from AP Wolf, Wolf Vanderlinden, Ivor Edwards, Chris George, Dan Norder, etc. etc, what a dreadful ‘candidtae’’ Tumblety supposedly is, but with few exceptions, these fellows are all advocates of the outdated ‘lustmord’ theory, which, to their way of thinking, eliminates homosexuals.

Time after time you claim it's outdated but keep ignoring that it's definitely not. It's the current modern accepted understanding of serial killers. The things you claim about such killers, by contrast, seem like they were snatched right out of the 1700s. You're whole goal in looking at criminology and psychology seems to be to toss out anything that disagrees with your Ripper theory and grasp madly at any outdated or fringe idea ever spouted by anyone you can pretend knows something about the topic so that you can use it to try to justify the person you want to believe killed a bunch of prostitutes 120 years ago.

And, on top of that, there are still tons of other reasons Tumblety makes a very poor suspect besides the fact that he was homosexual, and those have been explained time and time again on the threads actually about Tumblety. Don't try to use an Anderson thread to push more deceptive information concerning Tumblety.