Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Stewart P Evans]

Theory

But his fully revised piece, with the same last sentences quoted above, still omits all mention of the fact that Anderson had first expressed his belief publicly in 1901, long before blue devils of retirement and geriatric self-deluded wishful thinking might be inferred.at all.
Martin
With all good wishes,
Martin F

Anderson's theory that the murderer was 'a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum' was first aired publicly in 1895 in the Windsor Magazine (see below).

Anderson's 1901 claim that the murderer was 'caged in an asylum' appeared in The Nineteenth Century issue of February 1901 (see below). Both of these fall a long way short of his 1910 pronouncements of a 'definitely ascertained fact' and, although no mention was made of a Polish Jew, it is fair to assume that it relates to the 'Kosminski' of Macnaghten's 1894 memorandum.

So we see the theory of 1895, the 1901 mention simply as the killer 'caged in an asylum' but in 1910 it is added to and identified as a 'poor Polish Jew' and becomes 'a definitely ascertained fact.' Definite signs of a mere theory being established and later confirmed as fact - but signally with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

[fido]

Dave - I have said in postings elsewhere that Anderson's pig-headed determination to have a medical conclusion on Rose Mylett endorsing his own opinion, and his obsessive restatement of this opinion in his memoirs 22 years later, are indeed a part of the picture which has led me to say for 20 years that he was opinionated and would not shift once he had made up his mind: recently I posted the hyperbole that he wouldn't change if the angel Gabriel came down and controverted his evidence. I have never suppressed this failing, but taken it into account with other things which dedicated Anti-Andersonians rarely reprint or refer to. (Philip Sugen is unusual in showing clear respect for them when he notes that he was "a competent police chief, respected and valued by many of his colleagues." It is impossible for me to judge whether those who dismiss Anderson's type of Christianity as irrelevant, or something they have considered and find compatible with his supposedly twisting or inventing facts to bolster his professional reputation, have in fact looked at writings by Anderson and (say) Spurgeon and Booth, or considered the careers of Barnado, Fr Williamson, the Barnetts, Moody & Sankey, or Charles Carrington. (Americans might like also to consider William Jennings Bryan). It is very importabt to see these people and not the likes of Aimee Semple Macpherson or even Billy Sunday, let alone Jonestown or soome present-day Elmer Gantry as forming the moral climate in which Anderson lived and moved and against which his decision that it would be corrupting to belong formally to any church must be assessed. I suggest that I have in fact looked in greater breadth and depth at the ideological bases of Anderson's life - and must say at once that I don't find them or the late Victorian evangelical ethos at all attractive; but I certainly do find that they concur with his generally verifiable statements to indicate that he (and, in fact, Sir Charles Warren and James Monro) were more likely to be reporting accurately and without embroidery of the facts as known or [mis]understood by them than, say, Major Smith or the much more likeable Macnaghten. And I have to say over and over again, I see no need to revise the opinion "Anderson may have been wrong. He was always opinionated," which has stood in print over ny name for 20 years.

Stewart - as you say, the printed sources are available - many of them thanks to your indefatigable labours - and anyone can look at them and compare them. In my previous posting I thought it fair to compare what the A-Z concluded about Anderson before Philip Sugden had written on him, as it would be unreasonable to require him to have anticipated a revised ending that took into account what he and others had written. But his fully revised piece, with the same last sentences quoted above, still omits all mention of the fact that Anderson had first expressed his belief publicly in 1901, long before blue devils of retirement and geriatric self-deluded wishful thinking might be inferred. And Swanson's alleged formation of his theory in 1895 is rel;egated to an endnote where it is likely to be missed; an endnote, too, which describes Swanson's erroneous belief that Kosminsky had died in Colney Hatch prior to 1895 while scrupulously avoiding any mention of the fact that this fact is uniquely true of one poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel - David Cohen - who had already been described ass probably confused with Kosminsky before anybody but Jim Swanson knew anything about the marginalia. It is one thing to disagree wiht me: quite another to evade my views and the facts they rest on by behaving as though they simply weren't in thepicture at all.

Our revised conclusion to a piece which cited Sugden's and Melvin Harris's anti-Andersonian publications, though overtly demurring from Phil's demonstrably erroneous postulation of geriatric wishful thinking, may well be the piece which persuaded a thoughtful prvious poster that the A-Z freally is biassed in favour of Anderson. It runs: "Anderson may have been quite wrong. But persistent attempts to disprove his statements by denigrating his character are almost on a par with the outdated game of abusing and dismissing the police as a whole (and Warren in particular) in order to allow irresponsible theorizing from some other source." A-Z, 3rd revised edition, 1996).
Agreed, this expresses an opinion quite strongly. But with all due respect I think it is manifestly more cautious than "Anderson and Swanson had come to inhabit a world of wish-dreams. And together they transformed a armless imbecile, sheltering within the walls of Leavesden, into the most infamous murderer of modern times." (The Complete History, revised paperback edn, 2002, p.423.

But I do not need to insist on this. The references are available, and everybody can, will and should read the full passages through for themselves, and form their own opinions.

All the best,

Martin
With all good wishes,

Martin F

[caz]

Hi RJ,

You quoted me thus:

‘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?’

You emphasize the word 'they,' as if to remind us there was clearly no unity of opinion among members of the Metropolitan police...

...Oh, and by the way, I think you’re misreading Anderson, Caz. He never DID ‘take it out for walkies.’ That’s the whole point.

I was indeed emphasising your own ‘they’, to make that very point, but mainly to invite you to say how many (if not who) you would include in this group who may have had the same damn good idea about the killer’s identity, and were hoping like hell they could prove themselves wrong (so they would presumably not have to admit to something unpalatable that they might otherwise have to do?).

I’m still unclear as to where you were going on this, but your posts intrigue me enough to want to find out.

Oh, and by the way, I didn’t actually say that Anderson did take out the damn good idea for walkies, because you didn’t actually say what the idea might have been. I was trying to coax it out of you, to get to the ‘whole point’. Hence my question.

Are you suggesting that the damn good idea was not the low class Polish Jew that Anderson DID take out for walkies, and that was just a very ill-advised cover story - for a quack they lost when he flew away and quacked about it, perhaps?

You can keep your responses cryptic if you like. But you can’t then blame me if I stab in the dark at possible solutions and come up with a duck.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cap'n Jack]

There is that, Caz, and as ever nicely done, but I think Anderson was just extremely well disinformed when it came to the subject of the 'lower' classes.
For my understanding of the East End Jews of the LVP was that they were extremely litigatious; and spent a great deal of time in their local police stations accusing and cross accusing one another of various misdeeds and alleged crimes.
They don't appear to have been wary of the police at all, as is evidenced by the mountain of testimony given by Jews in the Whitechapel Murder investigations.
And I think this to be the rub.
That a minority population exposed to clear prejudice by the police and other organisations do not desert the the police and other organisations, they utilise the organisation like everyone else... for it is the police and other organisations that desert them, as is evidenced by this clip from the Old Bailey LVP:
'MAX PIENTKA , tailor, 2, Westmoreland Street, Marylebone. On January 31 this year I was at 23, Woodstock Street, Oxford Street, and prisoner called on me. He asked me if I would like to be insured, and said he was agent of a fire insurance company. I told him to call later, and on February 2 he called again, and I said I would insure. He asked me if I would like to insure higher than £100. I said that was sufficient for me, and then I handed him 2s. 6d. He asked me if I was a Jew, because the first Scotch company don't take any Jews.'

[caz]

Hi Mike, Ben, RJ, All,

Some of the recent posts highlight the difficulty of making too much of general population statistics to guess which section of society was most probably 'hiding' (in any sense of the word you like) the man responsible for the ripper murders.

Ben argues for a local Gentile ripper, on the grounds that there were more of them than local Jews. Mike then points out that he was dividing the locals by ethnicity, making Polish Jews outnumber all other groups like the Italians, Irish, Cockneys and so on. But I promise that if I find that women outnumbered men in the area I won't be arguing that the ripper was more likely to be a Jill than a Jack.

Whoever the murderer was, he comes from a tiny minority of (predominantly) men, who indulge in violence for its own sake, but appear sufficiently 'normal' when they are not indulging to get away with it on several occasions without being stopped. I cannot therefore see how the social grouping such a man is most likely to come from can be decided using statistics on race, religion or even class, in the area where he selects his victims, especially if that selection is not random, but influenced and motivated by the desire not to be caught (ie if he only picks on highly vulnerable women, in private or semi-private locations, and late at night or in the early hours).

I can see how Anderson's mind worked, regarding the elimination of anyone living in the immediate area who had his own privacy, leaving him only with men who lived with others who, as he thought, would have to have known his guilty secret and - crucially - been prepared to keep it, even while 'bruv' was still popping out at night to indulge.

The later 'identification' of Anderson's low class Polish Jew would still have confirmed (in his own mind at least) that the basic reasoning had been sound, if only he had not gone further than 'local scumbag of whatever hue, whose family doesn't care what he gets up to at night and turns a blind eye when he comes home bearing all the signs of scumbaggery'. Even if you could put it down to statistics, and show that local low class Polish Jew families significantly outnumbered their Irish, Italian or Cockney equivalents, therefore the scumbag family involved was most likely a low class Polish Jewish one, it would not excuse Anderson for his comments, because he didn't claim that he had made them on the basis of statistics. He implied it was on the basis of low class Polish Jews being generally scumbaggier than members of other groups, which would have been impossible to prove on statistical grounds and hard to defend on any grounds.

However, if racism had been 'institutionalised' at the time, in a self-conscious way, would Anderson not have thought it and acted on it without dreaming of actually coming right out and saying it? I wonder if he was more naïve than anything else, for not appreciating that he should have kept his mouth shut on this one. Would a senior policeman in the seventies have dreamed of announcing: "Naturally we had to dig a few blacks in the ribs to get to the one who did it. They were refusing to talk to us so we knew we were on the right track, and he's now safely behind bars, so everything's tickety-boo"?

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

Respect

Many thanks for the gracious acceptance of my apology Stewart: I'm very glad we're back on the even keel of discussion of the issues.
Now, why does my respect for Philip Sugden's accumulation of data turn to mixed respect for his analysis of it? Let's look at his own analysis of Anderson, which must underlie his feeling that the A-Z is over-apologetic:
"None of this entitles us to dismiss Sir Robert as an arrant liar. A competent police chief, he was valued and respected by many of his colleagues, and he did not invent Kosminski. Why, then, did he write so misleadingly about him? We can but speculate. The irritating sense of importance detected by Churchill suggests part, but only part of the answer. I incline to the belief that Anderson's errors of interpretation stemmed not from a wilful intent to deceive but from wishful thinking....
By 1910 the Ripper murders had slipped into history. In writing their reminiscences, however, public servants naturally have no wish to depict themselves as fools or failures. And a man of Anderson's self-conceit would have found it especially difficult to concede a blow to his personal and professional pride as ignominious as the CID's inability to detect the Whitechapel killer. After all, this was the man who had recklessly boasted, after Polly Nichols' death, that he could personally unravel the mystery 'in a few days' provided he could devote his undivided attention to it.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that Anderson was also deeply galled by public criticism over the case....
Troubed by deafness and an increasing sense of isolation, his days occupied in quiet contemplation of the scriptures, his nights plagues by attacks of 'blue devils', Sir Robert lived out his retirement at his home at 39 Linden Gardens, Hyde Park. He must sometimes have reflected there upon the hectic days at the Yard. And when he did it would doubtless have given him comfort to think, that whatever the world might say, he had laid the Ripper by the heels. Over the years, with the selective and faulty memory characteristic of advancing age, he came to believe it.
In supporting him, Swanson showed that same capacity for self-deception....
Anderson and Swanson had come to inhabit a world of wish-dreams. And together they transformed a harmless imbecile sheltering within the walls of Leavesden, into the most infamous murderer of modern times."
(The Complete History, pp 422.
Now I am claiming no great supeiority as a historian in detecting the faults in this - I myself am responsible for its major error of fact, and it is Stewart who corrected it, pointing out that the letter appointing Swanson officer to collate and pass on the detective information in the case, and boasting that the writer could solve it himself in a few days if he had the time, was not, as I had supposed FROM Anderson, but TO him, and came down (if I remember rightly) from the Commisisoner's Office having been written by the amanuensis A.C. Bruce. This sort of detailed correction of other people's literal misreadings of or misascription of documentary sources is work at which, I think, Stewart has never been equalled. Philip is not to blame for assuming the boast was Anderson's, but one of the important positions underpinning the view of Anderson's empty swaggering has been rmoved.
You will note that Phil still thinks it necessary to assert from the outset that Anderson was not an arrant liar - the position held by almost everyone except Richard-Whittington-Egan prior to 1987, and which I think Stewart approves of my correcting at that point. But he then substitutes flagging memory and geriatric wishful thinking in his retirement in 1910 - a failing which he suggests infected the loyal Swanson. This cannot be excused so easily, as it was already in the public domain and in the A-Z that Anderson's first statements indicating that he believed he knew the identity and fate of the Ripper appeared in 1901. And in his examination of Grainger, while Phil argues strongly for the enquiry's proving that the Ripper case was still open, he is silent about the PMG's observation that Swanson had reached his own contradictory conclusion as early as 1895.
Martin F

Apology and acceptance out of the way I do feel that when any insulting or aggressive posting takes place an unnecessarily combative tone enters the debate. I have now re-filed a stack of material that may have caused an unnecessary amount of upset had I posted it.

I have great respect for Philip Sugden both as a historian and as a friend. That, of course, does not mean that I agree with everything that he conjectures or opines. I should not think that any two authorities on any given subject agree to such an extent. But I have the greatest respect for his work in this field and we both agree on a preferred top suspect for the Ripper which is neither Chapman nor Tumblety. I have found his book to be the most accurate written on the case and the errors that I detected in it were imports from other author sources and he was misled as in the example cited by Martin where the report in question actually originated with Warren, was mainly written by an amanuensis, and was directed to Assistant Commissioner A. Carmichael Bruce who was handling Anderson's paperwork duties at that supervisory level in Anderson's absence. Indeed, the first marginal annotation on the report is Bruce's. However, Martin is quoting from Phil Sugden's old (first) edition and not the corrected new edition of his book in which this erroneous statement does not appear.

What Martin has stated in his post does not cause me to change my opinion of Anderson one iota. Nor does it change my agreement with Philip's assessment of the bias of the A-Z. It is for others to read all that is available and published and draw their own conclusions. But I think that Philip's words that 'there is, or ought to be, room for honourable disagreement amongst scholars' are true and should be heeded by all. It does appear to me, though, that some scholars reach their own conclusions, decide that they are right, and then are unable to accept any criticism of their work.

What I have often stated is that I am not out to destroy Anderson or his reputation. But I am in the business of presenting the fullest amount of relevant material available to the reader and student of these crimes, thus giving an even-handed and balanced view. Signally, crucial material that militates against Anderson, and affects any assessment of the worth of his writings, has been omitted from Martin's published work, despite the fact that Martin is aware of this material. Now this is fact - not my opinion, the citations do not appear in Martin's work, it is an act of omission.

I am not at war with the A-Z, its authors, or anyone else. I have some very find memories of time spent with Martin dating way back to 1989. And he was one of my guiding lights when I ventured back onto the paths of Ripperology after a short hiatus. In fact cut out all the Ripper crap and both he and Paul are great company and Martin has a very broad spectrum of knowledge which would have anyone listening in awe. But as far as Ripperology goes I believe that I have read more than anyone, bar none, and I have much material that will never see the light of day. And that is not a teaser, it is material that is better left unseen. What authors in this field should realise is that there are no icons, no single fountain-head of knowledge and no all-knowing authority - and if you set yourself up on a pedestal you will soon be knocked down. As I get older I seek Ripperological solace with very dear friends, older and wiser than I, friends like Richard Whittington-Egan, Don Rumbelow and Phil Sugden. They are honest and dispassionate and I consider myself very lucky to know them.

[The Good Michael]

Chris,

Maybe it's the other way around. Perhaps some leads, most notably the GSG and the apron (together or not) caused the police to step up their efforts in the lower class Jew community and with good reason, I'll add, yet they weren't forthcoming with any information. That may have caused him to have a lot of suspicion. It's possible his comments were born out of frustration with not getting anywhere with these folks.

Cheers,

Mike

[Dave O]

Surely Anderson's actions during the Rose Mylett case are also relevant to an understanding of him? What assessment do they allow us to make about his judgement and character?

1. If his religous beliefs are central to an assesment of his character (a fair point), did they qualifiy him to undertake an external examination of the victim and make a deduction as to her cause of death? What is the value of his scientific opinion?

2. What is the medical basis for Anderson's challenge to Dr. Bond (a lecturer of pathology, and findings in his first examination of Rose Mylett?

3. What are we to make of Anderson's claim to Monro on 11 Jan 1889, two days after the Mylett inquest closed, that Wynne Baxter shared the opinion that Rose Mylett did not die from homicidal violence (see Sourcebook, p 484, end of first paragraph)? A reading of Baxter's summation in The Times of 10 January shows that was plainly not the case--Anderson made an error of fact, quite a glaring one, imo. Possibly it was based on reading the same error made in the Advertiser 10 January (which I understand is in the same file as Anderson's letter to Monro).

Dave

[fido]

Many thanks for the gracious acceptance of my apology Stewart: I'm very glad we're back on the even keel of discussion of the issues.

Now, why does my respect for Philip Sugden's accumulation of data turn to mixed respect for his analysis of it? Let's look at his own analysis of Anderson, which must underlie his feeling that the A-Z is over-apologetic:

"None of this entitles us to dismiss Sir Robert as an arrant liar. A competent police chief, he was valued and respected by many of his colleagues, and he did not invent Kosminski. Why, then, did he write so misleadingly about him? We can but speculate. The irritating sense of importance detected by Churchill suggests part, but only part of the answer. I incline to the belief that Anderson's errors of interpretation stemmed not from a wilful intent to deceive but from wishful thinking....
By 1910 the Ripper murders had slipped into history. In writing their reminiscences, however, public servants naturally have no wish to depict themselves as fools or failures. And a man of Anderson's self-conceit would have found it especially difficult to concede a blow to his personal and professional pride as ignominious as the CID's inability to detect the Whitechapel killer. After all, this was the man who had recklessly boasted, after Polly Nichols' death, that he could personally unravel the mystery 'in a few days' provided he could devote his undivided attention to it.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that Anderson was also deeply galled by public criticism over the case....
Troubed by deafness and an increasing sense of isolation, his days occupied in quiet contemplation of the scriptures, his nights plagues by attacks of 'blue devils', Sir Robert lived out his retirement at his home at 39 Linden Gardens, Hyde Park. He must sometimes have reflected there upon the hectic days at the Yard. And when he did it would doubtless have given him comfort to think, that whatever the world might say, he had laid the Ripper by the heels. Over the years, with the selective and faulty memory characteristic of advancing age, he came to believe it.
In supporting him, Swanson showed that same capacity for self-deception....
Anderson and Swanson had come to inhabit a world of wish-dreams. And together they transformed a harmless imbecile sheltering within the walls of Leavesden, into the most infamous murderer of modern times."
(The Complete History, pp 422.

Now I am claiming no great supeiority as a historian in detecting the faults in this - I myself am responsible for its major error of fact, and it is Stewart who corrected it, pointing out that the letter appointing Swanson officer to collate and pass on the detective information in the case, and boasting that the writer could solve it himself in a few days if he had the time, was not, as I had supposed FROM Anderson, but TO him, and came down (if I remember rightly) from the Commisisoner's Office having been written by the amanuensis A.C. Bruce. This sort of detailed correction of other people's literal misreadings of or misascription of documentary sources is work at which, I think, Stewart has never been equalled. Philip is not to blame for assuming the boast was Anderson's, but one of the important positions underpinning the view of Anderson's empty swaggering has been rmoved.
You will note that Phil still thinks it necessary to assert from the outset that Anderson was not an arrant liar - the position held by almost everyone except Richard-Whittington-Egan prior to 1987, and which I think Stewart approves of my correcting at that point. But he then substitutes flagging memory and geriatric wishful thinking in his retirement in 1910 - a failing which he suggests infected the loyal Swanson. This cannot be excused so easily, as it was already in the public domain and in the A-Z that Anderson's first statements indicating that he believed he knew the identity and fate of the Ripper appeared in 1901. And in his examination of Grainger, while Phil argues strongly for the enquiry's proving that the Ripper case was still open, he is silent about the PMG's observation that Swanson had reached his own contradictory conclusion as early as 1895.

For what it is worth, everybody who wants to accuse the A-Z of bias is completely silent about our caveats on Anderson, one of the strongest of which came under the Grainger entry from the very first edition: "The authors note that if the person believed by the police to have seen the Whitechapel murderer was Anderson's witness, then considerable doubt is cast upon his identification of Anderson's suspect."


In fact the evidence of Anderson's failing memory comes from later in the decade when he mixed up the Penge and Road Hall murders in communication with H.L.Adam.

So looking at Sugden's critique, we note that while he rejects the pre-1987 opinion that Anderson was simply a liar, he retains the pre-1987 alleged motivation, that Anderson was too vain to admit that his department had failed in anything. Yet as far as this case is concerned, the only real boasts of which Anderson appears to be guilty are the claim that one didn't need to be a Sherlock Holmes to see that the murders were the work of a sexual maniac - an opinion with which many people today would still agree; that unsolved murders are very rare and the Ripper case is not one of them - and certainly there always were and are policemen who hold strong beliefs that suspects they could not charge or who won acquittal were in fact guilty, and the police are not at fault for "failing to catch them". And, of coure, there is Anderson's fatuous preening himself on having given orders that the prostitutes were to be told the police would not protect them, after which, whether or not post hoc was propter hoc, there were no further murders. I admit at once we didn't include this remark, largely because it didn't strike us as vital, and maybe, too, because there is no documented evidence as to how this quite extraordinary order was carried out. I myself was (and really am) far more impressed by the characteristic absurdity of his previous suggestion, that all prostitutes should be locked up for their own safety! Just a year after the Miss Cass scandal!! Anderson, one feels, would have jumped at my facetious proposal to cut crime by %50% - 75% by incarcerating all males on their 15th birthdays and not releasing them until they were 30.

But we did, I hope, give a representative selection of the challengiong voices: the Police Gazette doubted whether a bookish Biblical scholar like Anderson had the requisite knowledge of the world to be a good policeman - amusingly rather the argument that Stewart has offered to distinguish between us as historians. We quoted the admirable Bernard Porter's view of Anderson as "an irritating and opinionated man, inclined - as pious people are - to maintain that an action was justified because his moral principles debarred him from committing an immoral one." We examine the "Anderson's fairy tales" accusation, although we didn't have space to go in detail into the reason why using it to support the claim that Anderson of lied about the Ripper in his memoirs would be as misguided as accusing Senator Obama of lying if he were to be elected, forced by the economic circumstances to withhold his promise to decrease taxes for the middle classes, and then a misstatement were to be discovered in his memoirs. Politics produce overstatements and accusations which are really quite a different ball-game from writing reminiscences about non-political matters, and I am delighted that, for all the space he gives to Churchill's remartks in Parliament, Philip Sugden finally comnes to the same conclusion as me: "Anderson was not an arrant liar". I'm happy that he mentions the scriptural studies, which Anderson's granddaughter and the Police Gazette both noted as his central activity. I don't suppose he knew that his granddaughter also said he was very severe and always in command of himself so that she was frightened of him. (I think Sergeant Thick's granddaughter gave a rather similar descrition of him). And Jim swanson said his grandfather kept all his marbles to the end. There really isn't any strong evidence to support the idea of the morbid religiose recluse salving his resentment of past failure with wishful thinking and self-deception and leading Swanson astray. Cautious readers will have noted the amount of "reasonable supposition" which has replaced factual statement in Phil's account.
Of course, most history is supposition based on the balance of probabilities. But I would say that the A-Z both gives a more accurate set of data to be taken into consideration, and then comes to a far more cautious and - (I don't mean the next word to be morally critical; merely a professional description of one way of writing history that I think Stewart and I both approve) - responsible concluson than Sugden's, We conclude "However, despite these problems, the combined testimony of Anderson and Swanson leans heavily towards the identity of the Ripper having been known (but see Anderson's suspect for the problems surrounding even this conclusion). Phil concludes that "Anderson and Swanson had come to inhabit a world of wish-dreams. And together they transformed a harmless imbecile sheltering within the walls of Leavesden, into the most infamous murderer of modern times".

I put it to you, m'lud, that there is no doubt that my wish to continue to redress a balance of opinion unduly adverse to Anderson is well founded.

A gratuitous final note - our responsibility was probably all down to Keith, an outstandingly responsible historian (whence in part, I'm sure, his continuing silence about whatever he's been shown about the Maybrick journal). One sometimes feels he would like to hedge every fact with a "probably..." From his point of view, Paul and I with our love of argument (especially with each other) are great stirrers up of unnecessary hornets' nests!

All the best,
Martin F

[Jeff Leahy]

Fair point, it still strikes me that it's all rather 'chicken and egg'..at what point did suspicion fall and why?

If on Anderson's return he sits at his desk says 'Those jewish chaps, has anyone checked them out?' they do so and discover a suspect.

That might be considered anti-semitic.

However if Anderson returns and says have we any clues? someone says 'yes sir, blood on laundry delivered by a foreign gentleman, Batty street'

Anderson says 'Go check it out' and then events prove him correct.

Well I don't think there is a case for anti-semitism. He's just doing his job.

And unless all the police files ever turn up we will never know.

Pirate

[Chris]

Would not Rob's theory about the Crawford letter give some explination for this? If Anderson were approached by Kosminski's sister would he not have formed a rather more firm conclusion about the Rippers ethnic origin?

Yes - some kind of circumstantial evidence directed their attention to Aaron Kozminski at some point. But, as I read it, Anderson is claiming that before this he had deduced on general grounds that the murderer was a "low-class Jew":
"... the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low-class Jews ... And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point."

[Jeff Leahy]

The problem is that, as I read it, Anderson is claiming to have deduced that the murderer was a "low-class Jew" from his belief that he was protected by his family - and he is claiming to have reached that conclusion in the absence of any specific evidence suggesting that the murderer was Jewish.

That argument would only work if the Jewish immigrants were unique in a tendency to protect their own. But, as you say, it's a natural human instinct to protect one's own - particularly members of one's own family. If Anderson had simply said "the conclusion we came to was that he was being protected by his family", there would be no difficulty. It's the fact that he deduced from this that the murderer and his family were "low-class Jews" that is the problem.

Hi Chris

Would not Rob's theory about the Crawford letter give some explination for this? If Anderson were approached by Kosminski's sister would he not have formed a rather more firm conclusion about the Rippers ethnic origin?

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Martin and RJ

Just to comment on your profiling debate. This is an area I have discussed at length with my brother who deals with mental health problems in the Essex area and is ‘on call’ to help the police as such matters arise.

Firstly I’m sure that he’d point you both at the ‘Nature’ -‘Nurture’ debate that has long tasked the luminaries of his profession. And a question to which I know he has given considerable time, research and thought. His conclusions however are inconclusive, and he is always keen to point out that in cases of violent crime no single factor should be sited because it is a combination of influences both internal and external that contribute to out come.

It is interesting that Martin states that many psychopaths (I will add, sociopaths) never become dangerous. And of course as we all know, the majority of Schizophrenics never become dangerous, only around 2% (depending which country you source statistics from) Therefore citing mental health as a reason for murder is somewhat miss leading, there has to be other external and contributory factors that lead to such acts of violence.

In particular my brother has stated the use of other drugs and alcohol as having an exaggerated effect on people suffering mental illness. But we cannot say fore instance that if the Ripper suffered ‘schizophrenia’ that this was necessarily the cause of the murders. It could have been a contributing factor.

And of course Rj is correct. Modern profilers can’t expect their models or experience to be the same as Victorian London in 1888. We are talking about a unique set of social conditions. (Which is why Norma’s argument sort of ties in here).

My brother was keen to point out that it would be wrong to draw parallels between modern cases and cases at that time as he does not have a full understanding of the drugs/alcohol/medication in question. And external influences would be totally different to those of today

He can only draw parallels to his modern understanding. (Interestingly, Druit aside, he would also expect Schizophrenics to be of more danger to themselves and potentially suicidal).

However I must confess that he seemed more at ease with Aaron Kosminski as a potential suspect than he did with Martins homicidal ‘Cohen’ theory.

However the point I am trying to make here is simple whether we are dealing with profilers or dealing with Anti-Semitism both have to be studied in Historical context.

While using profilers to draw generalized conclusions this is far from saying that x will always react as y. Of course it would be foolish to dismiss the experts Martin has cited or the opinions they have given. However rather than saying I believe suspect A may have been JtR because of factor Y, all I think we can really draw from conclusion is that suspect A can not be eliminated because of Y.

Still the profiling and mental state of the Ripper is a fascinating subject that I felt rather frustratingly skipped over in the Aaron Kosminski podcast and perhaps it is something Martin and RJ might consider doing in the future with profilers and mental health experts rather than Jack the Ripper experts?

Anyway this a Sir Robert Anderson thread and people might get annoyed for straying off thread.. Just to comment that judging by the reactions and stimulated thought process going on, it’s great to have people of Martin and Stewarts stature going head to head on such an interesting subject.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson on the Jewish Murderer

Here is detail of an interview with Anderson carried in The Globe of 7 March 1910 -



Anderson's uncompromising insistence that the murderer was a Jew as a matter of fact seems to lift his subject out of the 'suspect' category into the realms of being the actual murderer. This appears to have been Martin's reading of it back in 1987 when he convinced himself that he had 'found Jack the Ripper.'

[DVV]

Anderson's logic relied on "probability", I guess.
Many Jews in Whitechapel, and the poorest of them, those who have more recently settled there, were the more reluctant to go to the police.
Poor Anderson was so certain of his hypothesis.

Amitiés,
David