Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Sam Flynn]

This thinking, Sam, would be an example of the 'false taxonomy' that I alluded to in my previous post.

I am little enamoured of so-called "profilers", RP, you may rest assured of that. That said, Klosowski, for all his middle-class pretensions (actually, in British "class" terms, upper-working-class I suppose), was nonetheless from a distinctly blue-collar background, yet turned out a multiple poisoner.

I clearly need to be further educated to the point where I'd no longer feel uncomfortable with the idea that "usually, the Victorian multiple murderers were from the middle-class", however.

All the best!

[rjpalmer]

Poisoners, perhaps, RJ

This thinking, Sam, would be an example of the 'false taxonomy' that I alluded to in my previous post.

What makes you so certain that the underlying motivation of multiple poisoners is any different from the motivation of multiple stabbers, besides a rather simplistic taxonomy or descriptive thinking?

Regardless, the only two real Rippers in Victorian England were middle-class functionaries. One was a minister, the other a solicitor's clerk and bank employee.

Klosowski also had middle-class pretentions and was a dandified social climber. Same goes for George Smith, who started as an unwanted street urchin in Bethnal Green, but reinvented himself as a toff--- complete with a top hat and an upper class accent. They're all diping out of the same bottomless well.

Best wishes,

[Howard Brown]

One can appear to be a Polish Jew very easily A.P. It doesn't require any degree from Harvard or Yeshiva ( but it vuddint hoit ! ) to see that a Polish Jew looks a little different from an Irishman...

I want to address Nats' statement she made to CGP:

There was plenty of it about, as clearly articulated in the press and it surely doesnt need "spelling out" regarding the institutions of power within the state.
Even the way Cox speaks about the local people in Aldgate reveals a lot of mutual dislike and distrust - his comments about the local Jews being "bad people" who had to be lied to by police and who then "pretended "to be watching out for under age workers----Nats

Nats,I love ya, but Cox didn't say that.

What Cox said was:

"They readily promised to do so ( help the undercover police look for nogoodniks in the sweating system), although we knew well that they had no intention of helping us. Every man was as bad as another.."-page 708 of the Ultimate, SPE & DR

Cox didn't say the local people were bad people,Nats. He referred specifically to the individuals he and his colleagues had taken into their confidence...and hey,guess what? Maybe they were bad guys for all we know !


Nats, while Doc Fido does usually make good points, and I am not saying he isn't here...where are the numbers for how many Irish were picked up for questioning as opposed to native born or Jewish or whatever? Unless someone can show that there was a higher percentage of Jews picked up vis a vis to the percentage of the Jewish male population in the surrounding area, its only a guess,and a poor one, that the police paid more attention to one specific entity.

A.P....lets not forget that when Americans were arrested,their national origin was mentioned too.

[Chris]

There was plenty of it about, as clearly articulated in the press and it surely doesnt need "spelling out" regarding the institutions of power within the state.

But that was precisely the point I was making in my previous post. I'm sure no one doubts that there was "plenty of it about", and that it was expressed in sections of the press.

But that doesn't equate to "institutional antisemitism" in the police force. If that's your claim, then it would be nice to have some proper evidence for it.

Mentor doesn't talk about that, and I don't think Bill Fishman does either, though of course if you can give me a reference ...

[Sam Flynn]

Martin Fido

It's not a semantic point at all.

Good on yer, Chris. We'll have no institutionalised anti-semanticism here

[Sam Flynn]

He has given the address "Mr. Stewart, 305 Mile End road," but at the Bow Police station he gave his name as "Ever." He appears to be a Polish Jew.'

How, how can you 'appear to be a Polish Jew'?

He was questioned at the nick, AP. It's not inconceivable that they determined his ethnicity there. Either that, or he was munching a zrazy roll whilst singing "Hava Nagila" when they nicked him.

[Natalie Severn]

Dear Martin F-




Ah, Martin, I tread here with trepidation, but I have to jump in, because this is precisely the issue I’ve always wished to discuss with you, and perhaps (I meekly suggest) is precisely the point at which your own ‘David Cohen’ theory might be open to question.

With out the least bit of ill-will focused at you (I’ve read your books and posts with great interest and benefit) I’ve always felt that this is why referring to blokes like John Douglas and Dr. Cancrini is less than satisfying in a historical case.

Why is it that we can’t be expected to properly interpret Dr. Robert Anderson without “absorbing the background” of his “time and place,” but, on the otherhand, we are expected to accpet that modern day criminal profilers like Douglas and Cancrini --neither of whom are, as far as I know, experts in Victorian culture--- can somehow give authoratative and an accurate “profiles” of the unknown murderer Jack the Ripper? Are you suggesting that Robert Anderson was somehow a product of his age, but Jack the Ripper wasn’t?

The erroneous belief hiding behind this assumption is that ‘serial murder’ is somehow a biological disorder; on the contrary, it is a cultural one (I think comparative studies in crime rates in different societies proves this). And this, I think, rather leaves fellows like Douglas and Cancrini high and dry.

In short, the two main objection to using F.B.I. profiling in a historical context are: 1) the erroneous assumption that multiple homicide is a biological disorder rather than a sociological one; and 2) the undeniable fact that Douglas and his colleagues based their original thinking on 20th Century examples and then tried to inflict them on “another time and place”--which is precisely what you are suggesting Stewart is doing.

Yet, beyond all this, the main objection I have to John Douglas and his colleagues at the F.B.I. is that, misled by the age-old verbage of Krafft-Ebing, they created a false taxonomy. By using the strictly descriptive attribute of ‘sexual serial murder’ they came to the dubious conclusion that they could then simply start collecting behavioral attributes of ‘sexual serial murderers’ and then create some fail-safe ‘profile.’ This is too simplistic to be scientifically valid, and is precisely why profiles are so often entirely inaccurate and why --without question--- they do no have the legs to travel back to Victorian England.

A good example is the conventional wisdom that the Ripper was a ‘local non-entity” and a “working-class bloke.” This would indeed make great sense to Douglas, because it was a profile that generally agreed with the burnt-out, frustrated, and disenfranchised offenders that he interviewed in 1980s’s America. In Victorian England and America, however, most of the multiple murderers were of a very different type, precisely for the reasons that should be of interest to a historian: because the cultural conditions were entirely different. Usually, the Victorian multiple murderers were from the middle-class, and, indeed, the very next murderer of prositutes in Victorian London (Neill Cream) was a dandified middle-class physician who lived in Chicago----in other words, precisely the sort of bloke the 'profilers' would dismiss as a ridiculous suspect.


Respectfully submitted.

R Palmer

Excellent points about the disparity of attention paid to race and class vis a vis Victorian murderers and the Victorian State [sub category police].

[Chris]

Martin Fido

It's not a semantic point at all.

At the risk of repeating myself - your argument is not based on provenance in the usual sense of the word, because the marginalia clearly have no provenance before 1987. It's based on your assessment of the character of the people concerned.

Obviously that's a subjective judgment, and absolutely nothing to do with "scholarship". And it certainly doesn't entitle you to deplore the "obtuse imperviousness to reason" of people who have a different opinion.

But anyway - thank you for your gracious apology ...

[Cap'n Jack]

How, 'ere is one:

'Evening News
London, U.K.
1 December 1888


THE EAST END
. ARREST OF THE SUPPOSED ASSASSIN IN BURDETT ROAD.

A man was arrested last night at the Crystal Tavern, Burdett road, Mile End, on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer. He got into conversation with a woman, whom he asked to accompany him, but she refused. He afterwards addressed a photographer who was soliciting orders, asking him if he could take some photographs, and using expressions which excited suspicion. He was given in charge. He has given the address "Mr. Stewart, 305 Mile End road," but at the Bow Police station he gave his name as "Ever." He appears to be a Polish Jew.'

How, how can you 'appear to be a Polish Jew'?

[Sam Flynn]

Usually, the Victorian multiple murderers were from the middle-class

Poisoners, perhaps, RJ - although, if true, Kłosowski would seem to buck the trend - but multiple stabbers, stranglers or cutters of throats? And operating in poverty-stricken parts of town to boot?

[fido]

Mike - thank you for your very gracious apology - and also for drawing my attention to the danger that I might have expressed myself badly.

Pirate - Paul Begg e-mailed me to say almost exactly the same thing: that Chris is a fine researcher though he will sometimes grab on to a semantic point (such as that even the best provenance doesn't finally prove an artifact to be genuine, even if it leaves little persuasive opportunity for a forger to have got at it) and refuse to let it go.

All the best,
Martin F

[Natalie Severn]

Chris,
There was plenty of it about, as clearly articulated in the press and it surely doesnt need "spelling out" regarding the institutions of power within the state.
Even the way Cox speaks about the local people in Aldgate reveals a lot of mutual dislike and distrust - his comments about the local Jews being "bad people" who had to be lied to by police and who then "pretended "to be watching out for under age workers----so that they,the police ,could do their round the clock watch of this young suspect about whom the only thing we know for certain is that they actually once spotted him speaking to a prostitute in a not very nice way.
If you want other examples of how anti-semitism operated in these times in the higher echelons of society read Proust on the Dreyfus case.Its a real eye opener on what was ready to crawl out of the woodwork -and did.If you want to know whether Robert Anderson was anti semitic re-read the words of the editor of the Jewish Chronicle in his 1910 answer to Anderson"s assertions ,including Anderson"s attempts to deny it----and read William Fishman only recently in "East End 1888".These people were and are prominent in the East End Jewish Community---they should know

[rjpalmer]

Dear Martin F-

Sorry, Stewart, you are claiming to utter as a historian. The school of life doesn't get you anywhere at all in understanding personalities from a different cultural background until you have absorbed that background and can determine the extent to which it will make the person under consideration different from those you have met in your own time and place. You haven't done this, ergo I cannot recommend anyone to pay much attention to your opinions about the nature of Anderson's truthfulness.

Ah, Martin, I tread here with trepidation, but I have to jump in, because this is precisely the issue I’ve always wished to discuss with you, and perhaps (I meekly suggest) is precisely the point at which your own ‘David Cohen’ theory might be open to question.

With out the least bit of ill-will focused at you (I’ve read your books and posts with great interest and benefit) I’ve always felt that this is why referring to blokes like John Douglas and Dr. Cancrini is less than satisfying in a historical case.

Why is it that we can’t be expected to properly interpret Dr. Robert Anderson without “absorbing the background” of his “time and place,” but, on the otherhand, we are expected to accpet that modern day criminal profilers like Douglas and Cancrini --neither of whom are, as far as I know, experts in Victorian culture--- can somehow give authoratative and an accurate “profiles” of the unknown murderer Jack the Ripper? Are you suggesting that Robert Anderson was somehow a product of his age, but Jack the Ripper wasn’t?

The erroneous belief hiding behind this assumption is that ‘serial murder’ is somehow a biological disorder; on the contrary, it is a cultural one (I think comparative studies in crime rates in different societies proves this). And this, I think, rather leaves fellows like Douglas and Cancrini high and dry.

In short, the two main objection to using F.B.I. profiling in a historical context are: 1) the erroneous assumption that multiple homicide is a biological disorder rather than a sociological one; and 2) the undeniable fact that Douglas and his colleagues based their original thinking on 20th Century examples and then tried to inflict them on “another time and place”--which is precisely what you are suggesting Stewart is doing.

Yet, beyond all this, the main objection I have to John Douglas and his colleagues at the F.B.I. is that, misled by the age-old verbage of Krafft-Ebing, they created a false taxonomy. By using the strictly descriptive attribute of ‘sexual serial murder’ they came to the dubious conclusion that they could then simply start collecting behavioral attributes of ‘sexual serial murderers’ and then create some fail-safe ‘profile.’ This is too simplistic to be scientifically valid, and is precisely why profiles are so often entirely inaccurate and why --without question--- they do no have the legs to travel back to Victorian England.

A good example is the conventional wisdom that the Ripper was a ‘local non-entity” and a “working-class bloke.” This would indeed make great sense to Douglas, because it was a profile that generally agreed with the burnt-out, frustrated, and disenfranchised offenders that he interviewed in 1980s’s America. In Victorian England and America, however, most of the multiple murderers were of a very different type, precisely for the reasons that should be of interest to a historian: because the cultural conditions were entirely different. Usually, the Victorian multiple murderers were from the middle-class, and, indeed, the very next murderer of prositutes in Victorian London (Neill Cream) was a dandified middle-class physician who lived in Chicago----in other words, precisely the sort of bloke the 'profilers' would dismiss as a ridiculous suspect.


Respectfully submitted.

R Palmer

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for the correction,CGP. You're right and I should have mentioned that too..

Anyway, in trying to come up with low class Polish Jewish suspects, I'm sort of stumped when it comes to nogoodniks from the year 1888.

Cohen wasn't arrested for any Ripper related offenses to our knowledge, as he was picked up in a brothel raid in December. My kinda guy.

Nor was Hyam Hyams picked up for any Ripper related offenses to our knowledge. He was picked up by Met police in December on unrelated charges.

Neither man was a known Ripper suspect.

Any others?

By the way,CGP, its not important,but Pizer also had an alibi for September 8th, as he was in Mulberry Street and had witnesses to prove it ( to cover his toches on the Chapman murder).

[rjpalmer]

J-Division rescued Pizer from an angry mob; H-Division released him from suspicion by disregarding a witness they thought was lying. Hardly a good example of antisemitism in the Met!