Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Jeff Leahy]

No, as Paul Begg has pointed out... can you send me one of your fan club badges of him, it would be a nice little addition to my collection. By this way of thinking we ignore the quote altogether as we don't know what questions were asked.

Stewart I’m not certain why you’re being so edgy. It is after all you that seem to have set up a pro, and presumably, an anti Anderson camp.

I’m not on anyone’s side however I think it reasonable if you’re constructing something on the subject to ask ‘Exerts’ in the field, difficult questions.

Which I feel is reasonable to ask both the pro and anti Anderson camps.

The point I have raised is perfectly reasonable.

You have made a post and said look what Anderson has said, it must mean something?

I don’t think we can draw too much from Anderson’s statement without knowing exactly the context of the question he was responding too.

Too some extent it’s like the face in the window some people can see on another thread…..you see what you want to see.

Pirate

PS If you PM me your address I’ll try and sort out a badge.

[Stewart P Evans]

Badges

As I have pointed out. It is impossible to decide what they indicate without knowing what Sir Robert Anderson was responding to.
Pirate

No, as Paul Begg has pointed out... can you send me one of your fan club badges of him, it would be a nice little addition to my collection. By this way of thinking we ignore the quote altogether as we don't know what questions were asked.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

That's a very interesting Anderson quote, especially with him flourishing the victim photos.

Which publication carried the interview?

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

In an interview in June 1892 Anderson the Whitechapel Murders were mentioned. Anderson produced the victim photographs and stated -

"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."

I suggest any interested readers decide for themselves what these words indicate.

As I have pointed out. It is impossible to decide what they indicate without knowing what Sir Robert Anderson was responding to.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Actual Words

In an interview in June 1892 Anderson the Whitechapel Murders were mentioned. Anderson produced the victim photographs and stated -

"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."

I suggest any interested readers decide for themselves what these words indicate.

[Roy Corduroy]

We all breathe a sigh of relief, Martin and Stewart, that bygones be bygones and civil debate continues.

I have great respect for Philip Sugden... ...and we both agree on a preferred top suspect for the Ripper which is neither Chapman nor Tumblety.

If top suspect means one named by a police official, then with Ostrog checked off and knowing you don't lean towards Kosminki, that would be Montague Druitt. Or, Stewart, do you and Phillip have another top suspect you prefer?

Roy

[Stewart P Evans]

Pirate Jack

I refuse to debate with 'Pirate Jack' in view of some of the nonsense he spouts and his past spats with other posters. Here, again, he is responding after priming by Paul Begg, it's that obvious.

[Jeff Leahy]

The implications of this for the pro-Anderson lobby aren't good. Martin's theory is in tatters, and the case against Aaron Kosminski isn't looking too good either. Why doesn't Anderson respond with 'the offender has been committed to an asylum' (as he does three years later) or 'the offender is now dead' (as per Martin's theory), or even merely say that 'we are satisfied that the criminal is no longer a threat.' There is no apparent need for secrecy.

Surely it is impossible to say what Andersons reply should have been without knowing the exact wording of the question he was asked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAMIkbR9uk4&feature=related

In Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy we discover the answer to life the Universe and everything is 42. However this is fairly meaningless without knowing the question.

Surely all Anderson is doing is answering a general question. Without knowing that question's exact wording we can deduce very little from this attachment.

However, the pro-Anderson debaters will wriggle and produce all sorts of excuses such as it was too early for Anderson to reveal anything &c. &c. But this small piece is deserving of a very close look and analysis. The Anderson arguers always require an element of secrecy and duplicity to carry their theorising forward.
[ATTACH]3496[/ATTACH]

Isnt this rather having your cake and eating it. If the Pro Anderson camp, whoever they might be (its rather prosumtuous) reply, then they are 'wiggling and making excuses' when in fact they could just be pionting out that this attachment , in itself dosnt mean very much without knowing the exact wording of the question.

The simple answer is that by mid-1892 the 'caged in an asylum' theory hadn't yet fully formed.

What your doing is putting two and two together and coming up with five.

How can you possibly deduce this from the attachments that you have supplied?

If the question was..Sir Robert do you know the identity of Jack the Ripper?

you might have a point

What we dont know is exactly what Sir Robert was responding too

Yours Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

1903

Anderson gave a lecture to the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society on Tuesday, 3 March 1903 and an article appeared in The Yorkshire Weekly Post on Saturday, March 7, 1903. It is interesting to see that his views on crime and criminals were openly regarded as 'peculiar notions'. He was in his early sixties at this time but was described as 'gray and elderly', perhaps an indication that this was regarded as a rather good age in those days.

[Chris]

While this statement is undoubtedly true...is there not also the possibility..given what is known about the condition of schizophrenia, TODAY.

That Aaron could have been going through, 'Psycotic episodes'

Perhaps he went 'in' and 'out'

And, as yet we have found NO evidence...

Sorry, I didn't really explain very clearly.

Setting the Cohen theory aside for a moment, it's usually argued that the "identification" - if the Anderson/Swanson account is based on a real attempt to identify Aaron Kozminski - took place in 1890 or early 1891. That's based on various considerations, including Swanson's implication that it took place soon before he was committed to Colney Hatch, and also the fact that the Convalescent Police Seaside Home wasn't opened until 1890 (though of course that argument depends on the CPSH being the right "Seaside Home", which I doubt).

But in that case it would be odd that Macnaghten thought that Aaron Kozminski had been committed to an asylum about March 1889, before he joined the police force. That seems to imply that if Aaron came to the police's attention and was investigated in 1890 or 1891, Macnaghten knew nothing about it at the time, or it was not significant enough for him to remember it when he came to write the memoranda in 1894 (and of course Macnaghten in his memoirs does profess a great interest in the Whitechapel Murders).

The alternative is that Aaron Kozminski was suspected earlier on - in late 1888 or early 1889, before Macnaghten joined the force - that Swanson was confused about his dates, and that whatever the "Seaside Home" was, it wasn't the police one.

[Jeff Leahy]

Good morning Stewart

Post +186 and +187 appear to be the same news paper clip?

Was this an error. or am i missing something?

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Major Arthur Griffiths

Major Arthur Griffiths was a close friend of both Anderson and Macnaghten and he was the first to reveal Anderson's 'committal to an asylum' theory in 1895. Not only a friend, Griffiths was also part of the official governmental hierarchy (he was Inspector of Prisons at the time) and was obviously trusted and privy to much official material.

Anderson and Macnaghten would know that they could trust Griffiths and it appears that he, alone amongst public commentators on the case, was made privy to the contents of the 'Macnaghten memorandum' of 1894 which contained both Druitt (Macnaghtens preferred suspect) and Kosminski (Anderson's presumed preferred suspect) to use for his book provided the names weren't mentioned. He describes them in his 1898 book Mysteries of Police and Crime. In his summing up of these suspects, he speaks of the theory that the Ripper 'became furiously insane and committed suicide' and then states "It is a least a strong presumption that 'Jack the Ripper' died or was put under restraint after the Miller's Court affair. No sign here of Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' of 1910. Merely a presumption that he may have been 'put under restraint.'



Cue Martin stage left - "No Anderson did know but was keeping it secret from Macnaghten and Griffiths because..."

[Stewart P Evans]

Swanson Theory

And the 'Swanson theory' mentioned in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 7, 1895 -

[Stewart P Evans]

Identification of Criminals

And here's Anderson in 1894 talking of identifications -

[Stewart P Evans]

Implications

The above piece from Cassell's Saturday Journal of Saturday, June 11, 1892 which I discovered a few years back, is worthy of closer examination. For the Cassell's reporter has obviously mentioned to Anderson the still unsolved ('undiscovered') Whitechapel murders of 1888 and the question of theories about the murders.

Anderson's response is to show his interviewer photographs of the victims and state, "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." The date here is very significant, for it is four years after the murders and seventeen months after Aaron Kosminski's detention. There was no Ripper hue and cry in the press or public arena in mid-1892.

The implications of this for the pro-Anderson lobby aren't good. Martin's theory is in tatters, and the case against Aaron Kosminski isn't looking too good either. Why doesn't Anderson respond with 'the offender has been committed to an asylum' (as he does three years later) or 'the offender is now dead' (as per Martin's theory), or even merely say that 'we are satisfied that the criminal is no longer a threat.' There is no apparent need for secrecy.

However, the pro-Anderson debaters will wriggle and produce all sorts of excuses such as it was too early for Anderson to reveal anything &c. &c. But this small piece is deserving of a very close look and analysis. The Anderson arguers always require an element of secrecy and duplicity to carry their theorising forward. The simple answer is that by mid-1892 the 'caged in an asylum' theory hadn't yet fully formed.