Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Cap'n Jack]

Not to me, Natalie, but to Anderson, yes.

[Natalie Severn]

Stewart, wasn't Lushington a Jew?

Does it matter Ap?

[Cap'n Jack]

Stewart, wasn't Lushington a Jew?

[caz]

That Scotland Yard still roamed the docks looking for the fiend after 1888/1889 might well mean they had 'no idea.'

On the otherhand, it might really mean they had a damn good idea, but were hoping like hell they could prove themselves wrong.

Hi RJ,

How many in Scotland Yard might have been in on this damn good idea?

I must admit I can’t see why they would be so troubled all the while it remained only a damn good idea. Damn good ideas can be kept out of harm’s way as long as nobody feels the need to parade them as definitely ascertained facts. That's when they have the potential to do harm, surely?

So do you think they were also hoping like hell that Anderson would not decide to take this damn good idea out for walkies one day without belt, braces and a damn good reason?

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for these Howard and for your offer.
All the Best
Norma

[Howard Brown]

Howard, as Chris has made a comment about the omission of my name in your post here, I thought that I should make some comment upon it. do hope that it was a slip rather than a deliberate action.

Correction: The Ultimate by Evans & Skinner.

Nats:

If at any time you wish to copy and paste and related articles I found over there, please feel free to place them here at your leisure. That goes for everyone else as well.

Here's one which has been mentioned earlier:
San Antonio Express
Sept. 21,1902
Page 22
SEVERE ON CRIMINALS
SIR ROBERT ANDERSON WOULD TREAT THEM AS LUNATICS
London,Sept. 20-
Sir Robert Anderson who was at the head of the criminal investigation department of the metropolitan police force a long period, has written an article reaffirming his conclusion that a radical change in dealing with professional criminals is necessary.
He favors a registration of this dangerous class and would render it compulsory for judges in committing them to hard labor whenever proof is shown by the police that they are professional criminals preying on the community. He believes the constant conviction and sentencing of habitual criminals for short terms of imprisonment to be a waste of punitive energy when they could be branded for what they are and kept under restraint, like lunatics, at the leisure and discretion of the Crown.


and one more...

Philadelphia Inquirer
August 24,1913
Page 2
BURGLARY DEMANDS EDUCATED THIEVES
Opportunity For Trained Men To Become Genteel Raffles
Never So Good.
London,Aug 23-
Much of the 1913 crop of college students as have not yet chosen a career may be interested to learn that, according to the chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, the opportunity for men of education in the burglary business was never so good as now. The ignorant Bill Sykes type has ceased to exist, to be superceded by the genteel and erudite Raffles.
The authority above quoted has been looking through the calendars from February 1910 to November 1911 and has found that out of two hundred burglary cases, eighty three percent of the prisoners were persons of good education.
Sir Robert Anderson, formerly of Scotland Yard, without committing himself to the correctness of the view expressed, declares that if it is true it is due to the fact that punishement is now much lighter than formerly and that long sentences have disappeared. He thinks present methods tend to increase crime.
" I remember that once a friend of mine, who was a minister, went to New York, where he was shown over the prisons, " said Sir Robert. "As he was speaking to a well educated prisoner on the sadness of his position, the man replied , " You have fox hunting in England. Sometimes you get a bad fall while hunting, do you not? I have had a bad fall, but that is no reason why I should give up the sport."

[Sam Flynn]

There is an interesting passage in The Lighter Side of My Official Life (1910), page 191.

"Interesting"? Diplomatically put, Stewart. What a remarkable thing for Anderson to have said, and how ambivalent! Whilst, on the one hand, he could be commended for his honesty in admitting that he made errors, what he's confessing to (namely, getting away with everything he did wrong), and seemingly rejoicing in it, sounds altogether less commendable.

[Stewart P Evans]

Mistakes

There is an interesting passage in The Lighter Side of My Official Life (1910), page 191. He touches on the inherent human failing of us all, making mistakes, and surely his remarks indicate that he covered his mistakes by resorting to deception?

"But, whatever the reason, Lushington [Godfrey Lushington (1832-1907) Permanent Under Secretary at the Home Office] never gave me any help in my official work; and when Mr Monro left Scotland Yard [1890] I was thrown on my own resources to an extent unknown by my predecessors in the office. Naturally I made some grave mistakes. But no man is fit to be head of the C.I.D. if he is not clever enough to make mistakes without being caught! And I can boast that I never incurred a word of censure for a single one of my errors; and in one instance - it was a matter that cost me much distress and some searchings of heart, for it related to the safety of the Queen - I had a letter of thanks from the Home Office!
Though I was never detected when in the wrong, I was occasionally censured when in the right."

[Stewart P Evans]

Peculiar Ideas

Some of Anderson's peculiar ideas on criminals and crime make interesting reading, such as, "We permit hereditary criminals, men who are criminals both by nature and by habit, to beget children to follow in their steps."

He also went so far as to suggest life imprisonment for such 'habitual criminals.'

[Stewart P Evans]

Back to the Debate

Ah well, back to the debate. It is interesting to isolate and examine some of Anderson's statements in order to get a better idea of his way of thinking and the resoning behind what he said of the Ripper case.

In his 1907 book, Criminals and Crime: Some Facts and Suggestions, pages 2-3 he says the following which must reflect upon his thoughts about the Whitechapel murders - "Great" crimes are seldom "undetected"; but of course it is one thing to discover the author of a crime, and a different matter altogether to obtain legal evidence of his guilt. And in this country the evidence must be available when an accused person is placed under arrest. Not so in countries where the police are armed with large depotic powers which enable them to seize a criminal without any evidence at all, and to build up the case against him at leisure, extracting the needed proofs, it may be, from his own unwilling lips."

[Stewart P Evans]

Littlechild

Natalie/Stewart - What does it really mean to say, 'the case was not solved?'
But Anderson (& Littlechild) didn't talk of proof; they only talked of 'moral certainty,' and that, I think, is the chink in the armor. They ---themselves-- were painfully aware that the case 'was not solved.'That, All the best.

Roger, Littlechild did not talk of 'moral certainty', he merely gave his opinion - "to my mind" - which does not carry the certainty and dogmatism of Anderson's comments. Littlechild is to be commended for this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fact

There are two things going on here.
1. Anderson asserts that JTR was a low class Polish Jew.
2. Anderson asserts that such Jews have no truck with Gentile justice.
The two assertions may both be right or they may both be wrong.
Or one or the other may be right.
The big point to my mind is why on earth would Anderson come out with all the stuff he did if there was absolutely no truth in it as some people here seem to think.

Stephen, I think that it may have more to do with what Anderson believed, rather than being right, the truth or literal fact. However, personally, I do allow for the possibility of deception. I fully explain this in Scotland Yard Investigates.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Ultimate Sourcebook

In Chapter Thirty of The Ultimate Sourcebook by Keith Skinner, you'll find Philadelphia journalist Richard H. Davis's interview with Inspector Henry Moore which appeared in the PMG in 1889 around the time of the Pinchin Street Torso crime.

Howard, as Chris has made a comment about the omission of my name in your post here, I thought that I should make some comment upon it. do hope that it was a slip rather than a deliberate action.

Keith Skinner is a very old friend of mine (we first met in 1986) and an excellent and tenacious researcher. It has been a delight and honour for me to have worked with him over the years. Our first work together was on the Peasenhall murder mystery of 1902 in which Keith's grandfather, Alphonso Skinner, appeared as a prosecution witness. So Keith and I go back a long way. Sure we don't agree on every aspect of 'Ripperology' but that is as it should be. We have great mutual respect and friendship.

Keith is very honest and he is the first to admit (and has done so publicly) that he did not compile and write The Ultimate Sourcebook - I did. In fact the basic material was in manuscript form before Keith joined me on the project. Keith brought with him some valuable additions on the Poplar murder, his undoubted expertise and very valuable support. But in the early 1990s I had purchased, at cost of around £1,200, hard copy of all the MEPO and HO files at Kew which I then transcribed over a period of years. I may be over-reacting to a mere slip here, but I do have reasons for being a tad sensitive about this issue. I am merely stating this to set the record straight.

[Stewart P Evans]

Theories

Hi Stewart
As I've said before, I bow to nobody in respecting your knowledge about this case (I think I once called you the best Ripperologist bar none and I imagine few would disagree) but might it have been that there was no paper chain here, or if there was that the papers were not filed, or that they were filed but later removed? Could these options not be a possibility?

Stephen, many thanks for the very kind words although I'm not so sure that I deserve them. The overall reports in the Home Office files, unlike the police ones, are pretty complete and show no sign of any such scenario. The same applies to the extant police files and to suggest that something was covered up, omitted, or taken out at a later date is simply untenable. It is the main reason that have always argued against the idea of 'a positive Ripper identification known only to Swanson and Anderson and no one else'. But conspiracy theories being as popular as they are, and theorists being a tenacious as they, are it will live on.

[Dan Norder]

but might it have been that there was no paper chain here, or if there was that the papers were not filed, or that they were filed but later removed? Could these options not be a possibility?

Hi Stephen,

The only way those would be a possibility is if they also created a false paper trail with reports suggesting they were still looking for the Ripper years later written by various people on several different dates.