Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Stewart P Evans]

Won't Wash

Stewart: the punctuation issue refers exclusively to the "undiscovered crimes" piece. There is no reason to suppose one way or the other that the term had been brought up in the conversation since, of course, I agree that it is a commonplace inaccurate way of describing an unsolved crime - just as "we failed to catch" is a commonplace inaccurate way of saying "failed to bring to justice a perpetrator whose identity we knew."
Martin F

I think I have covered the piece that appeared in Cassell's Saturday Journal in 1892 as far as I need to. Readers will have to draw their own conclusions on that debate.

Martin quotes "we failed to catch" and puts his own interpretation on it that it is "a commonplace inaccurate way of saying 'failed to bring to justice a perpetrator whose identity we knew'". This is absolutely mind-boggling. Does he actually believe this? I might agree that it may be interpreted in that context but to say that this is what it actually means is simply bad reasoning.

When I was a police officer we sometimes experienced a series of crimes, usually a series of burglaries, where the offender was not caught, and we had no idea who he was. And we used to say that "We failed to catch that burglar in the town last year (or whenever)", which was a fact, but it didn't mean that we also knew his identity. Sorry Martin it just won't wash.

However, the point here is not that Anderson said "we failed to catch", what he actually said was, "...our failure to find Jack the Ripper..." Or does that mean "failed to bring to justice a perpetrator whose identity we knew." C'mon Martin, pull the other one.

[fido]

Pirate Jack - I'd thoroughly enjoy a cruise down the Medway. Don't let me try and catch a mooring buoy for you, though. My average loss of boathooks is one for every attempt to catch a buoy. (Only average, because I can lose them in other ways, too).

I don't thinnk I need to add anything to your comments on Harry's intervention, and the clay pipe evidence posting. (Oh, and Paul has told me he does in fact know you and is working on a project with you - but of course that doesn'tt excuse the prtence that you are his mouthpiece which, if anything, I'd have called evading the issue with red herrings and innuendo. Naturally, as Paul is someone I profoundly disagree with on many issues, and repect very much nonetheless, it wouldn't worry me if you weer speaking for him or echoing his opinions. But he would certainly have told me if this were the case.

Stewart: the punctuation issue refers exclusively to the "undiscovered crimes" piece. There is no reason to suppose one way or the other that the term had been brought up in the conversation since, of course, I agree that it is a commonplace inaccurate way of describing an unsolved crime - just as "we failed to catch" is a commonplace inaccurate way of saying "failed to bring to justice a perpetrator whose identity we knew."

I agree entirely with whoever it is who objected that the details of the ID are missing: I think it is common ground with everyone that Swanson's talk of taking a suspect with difficulty to the Seaside Home and then letting him go is very unsatisfactory and sounds like an event unique in the annals of policing! Quite simply, none of us understands it and attempts to argue a scenario (like Stewart's in Scotland Yard investigates) are inevitably convoluted and (like any interpretation of Swanson's notes) have to use a good deal of hypothesis.

Well, it seems that the inordinate amount of time I've had to spend in the past explaining that Sir William Harcourt, no matter how celebrated a Home Sectreray he was, was a strong political opponent of Anderson's and a noted political bruiser, so that his remarks have to be treated with caution has worked. At least we're not getting those brought up over and over again as tehy used to be by Melvin Harris.

But isn't it something of a smokescreen that Stewart keeps posting quotation after quotation and averring that an answer to each separate repetition of Anderson's must be made, or I'm evading or - heaven help us! - pursuing red herrings? He accused me of lack of objectivity in saying that Anderson's type of committed Christianity meant that he would not have put garuitous lies about the Ripper case in his autobiography. I have laid out the sort of background and source material on which I base this, and carefully compared my earliest conclusion about Anderson, and two A-Z editions' conclusions about Anderson with Philip Sugden's. I haveasked Stewart to show where there is lack of objectivity in that, and to correct my misimpressions. The answer? Stewart was a policeman with great experience of life. He owns - (has he read?) - theological books by Anderson. He knows more about Anderson than anyone else. And here are a lot of cuttings which have no bearing whatever on the question of Anderson's veracity or mendacity, but which Stewart believes show that Anderson came very late to his Polish Jew ID belief; I think show that it may have hardened in his mind as time went by and nothing emerged to contradict it; and Paul Begg thinks don't show anything of any importance at all except that Anderson's thknkng was formed at some point early in the 1890s, even though it wasn't expressed as a crystalline conviction until 1910.(At which date Anderson was NOT geriatric according to his granddaughter!)

I start to feel like Anderson himself, being battered by Major Smith with his bull-in-a-china-shop assertion that he knew more about the murders than any man living; an irrelevant charge that Anderson was being recklessly antiSemitic, and a concomitant bow to political correctness by calling what appears to be Lawende a kind of hybrid German rather than, simply, another Jewish immigrant!

Where is Stewart's case for saying that a belief in Anderson's general veacity based on familiarity with his avowed ethos is unobjective?


Apologies to Druittites for my failure to include him in my first "prime suspect" list. We don't know what it was that made him so important in Macnaghten's mind; we don't know enough about him to write him off (and the schoolmasterly interference with little boys of which I suspect him is, unlike Tumblety's gynophobia and interest in youths, quite compatible with strong heterosexual urges), so I actually list him as my second strongest suspect, after Cohen but before Kosminsky.

And now essays have started coming in for me to mark, and so I must leave this fascinating discussionwith regret.

All the best,

Martin F

[Stewart P Evans]

Unsolved

Good morning Stewart
The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes leads to the production of certain ghastly photographs.
Surely this is the commentators opinion (‘undiscovered crimes’) not Andersons.
Still ‘undiscovered crime’ is not a phrase expressed by Anderson who simply says:

“there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders”

The fad or theory might have been ‘Parnell’ or that it was a ‘lover’ like Barnet or Kidney. Or that it was a doctor collecting organs.
Of course we don’t know the exact question. But why would he volunteer information that he was not asked for?
Especially when the case is still open and on going.
He hints at the truth. But keeps his full theory close to his chest.
Pirate

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.

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.

Please read and understand things before you address them.

[Rob Clack]

I thought it was interesting that in Anderson's autobiography, he said Mary Kelly was the last victim and assumed Alice Mckenzie was murdered by someone else. So why no mention of Frances Coles? If his suspect was Aaron Kosminski then he would have known he was locked up about a week before she was murdered. He could easily have just ignored this for his book but Swanson in his notes?

Rob

[Jeff Leahy]

Good morning Stewart

The mention of this appalling sequence of still undiscovered crimes leads to the production of certain ghastly photographs.

Surely this is the commentators opinion (‘undiscovered crimes’) not Andersons.

Still ‘undiscovered crime’ is not a phrase expressed by Anderson who simply says:

“there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders”

The fad or theory might have been ‘Parnell’ or that it was a ‘lover’ like Barnet or Kidney. Or that it was a doctor collecting organs.

Of course we don’t know the exact question. But why would he volunteer information that he was not asked for?

Especially when the case is still open and on going.

He hints at the truth. But keeps his full theory close to his chest.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

And Pirate Jack, I've tried to use shorter paragraphs, and hope they come out properly separated.

All the best, Martin F

Hello Martin

Many thanks for your kind consideration. Although we have never met I feel as though we have, given the warm reverence you are often given in conversation by many of your old friends.

I gather in conversation yesterday that you share my love of boats. Any time you are in England and would enjoy a cruise down the river Medway with an old Pirate you will be more than welcome.

I'd just like to add how impressed and inspirational your posts have been. I must admit in the past my posts have on occasions gotten bogged down in semantics’ and petty confrontation. I will try and follow your example more closely in future.

Yours Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Speculating

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?
He answers a question about 'Fads and Theories'
Then hints at the correct answer.
Pirate

Ah, now you are speculating as to the question asked. But I haven't claimed that it is inconsistent with Anderson's later proclamations. I did raise the question as to what could have been preventing Anderson from claiming that he did not regard the murders as unsolved and that he had a 'perfectly plausible theory' as to the fate of the killer. Surely the most obvious answers to someone coming to him with 'fads and theories.'

[Jeff Leahy]

So accepting that the 1892 interviewer's actual question is not known, and I never said it was, Anderson still states, "There, there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a maniac revelling in blood." And he makes no mention of an offender having been 'caged in an asylum' nor does he add a corrective that the crimes were not unsolved - as clearly the reporter was discussing them with him as unsolved.

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?

He answers a question about 'Fads and Theories'

Then hints at the correct answer.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Is podcasting Paul Begg's "preferred media" when he wishes to discuss something with Stewart Evans?

That's news to me.C'mon Jeff,
JM

Good morning Jonathon

Yes I thought this might turn some heads. As far as i understand, and please note I am NOT a spokesman for Paul you can all ask him his views directly.

He prefers not to post on casebook because it is very time consuming, where as, the podcasts only take up a fixed amount of time each week. He also finds them less confrontational.

I thought it was being 'implied' that Paul was avoiding defending his position on the A to Z. This is NOT the case.

Clearly Stewart is aware that I have been working on a project for some time with Paul and have regular meetings with him. As that project has elements that are relivant to some of the questions raised here, I think it acceptable to raise 'observations' that paul and I have discussed over a cup of coffee. I am merely trying to ascertain the Facts.

However I am not a spokesman for Paul. Like Martin and Paul we have our own differences of opinion about the case. So please if you have any questions directly for Paul please direct them to him personally. I am sure he would be happy to answer any questions which people might like to send to you, Jonathon, with regards to the A to Z.

Best regards

Jeff

PS and yes, I do have high regard for Paul's views and the kind generosity he has extended towards me.

[Jeff Leahy]

So heres a little question.How did Kosminski,or Cohen,or Kaminsky get into Mary Kelly's room.Historically speaking,that is.Perhaps the same way the suspect entered the seaside home.Through Anderon's mind.

Perhaps they simply put their haqnd through the broken window and entered the room the same way as MJK. Or more simply the same way the other victims met their deaths....They entred as MJK client?

Pirate

[IchabodCrane]

1908 vs The lighter sides

To an unbiased hobby part-time 'ripperologist' like myself, Anderson's 1908 statements about the lost proof (clay pipe and graffito) don't seem to contradict the notion that by that time he was convinced of the guilt of the crazy jewish ripper who was identified according to his recollection, but could not be brought to justice. The 1908 piece makes me feel that Anderson was expressing his disappointment over lost chances to proof that his suspect was the ripper other than by personal identification. Hence I also don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in books that support a jewish inmate theory.

[harry]

Surely any theory built around the claim by Anderson,that the Ripper had been identified,should first be supported by evidence of such an identification.
Where did the identification take place?Who was identified,and who made the identification?Who,if anyone, was present at the time.Such small unimportant items seem to have been overlooked,yet they are the very basis of the claim.Without them there is nothing.

Of course I forgot.It is a theory based on historical perceptions,so physical implications take a back seat.They are not neccessary.

So heres a little question.How did Kosminski,or Cohen,or Kaminsky get into Mary Kelly's room.Historically speaking,that is.Perhaps the same way the suspect entered the seaside home.Through Anderon's mind.

[Stewart P Evans]

Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine

The important Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine article of March 1910 -

[Stewart P Evans]

Daily Chronicle

In August 1908 the newspapers were full of another high-profile unsolved murder, the Luard case at Sevenoaks in Kent. As a result a Daily Chronicle representative obtained the views of Anderson on crime detection.

It is an important, front-page, piece on Anderson, given the date, the subject matter and, not least of all, the fact that it includes Anderson commentary on the Ripper case of 1888. You will not find this important piece in Martin's book nor in the A-Z, I do not know why, but I do know that the authors were aware of it. For fear of being accused of 'influencing' readers I am simply showing the relevant extract -

[Stewart P Evans]

Sherlock Holmes

One of Anderson's more appealing traits is the fact that he appears to have been an avid Sherlock Holmes 'fan.' T.P.'s Weekly of October 2, 1903, featured an article by Anderson 'Sherlock Holmes, Detective. As Seen by Scotland Yard.' Here is an extract -