Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This is from The Times, 30th July 1888—



Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Roger.
I can see what you are meaning.On the other hand,with Sir Robert,its almost sometimes as if he is saying,"I had a dream" and if it was more a case of his "wishful thinking" than actuality, we need to be wary.

How,
I will take time out and get over to read the stuff you mention on your site.I find it difficult to keep up with several sites and the reading at the moment.I am aware there was conflict between the recently arrived Jews and the longer standing Jews,and between the rich and the poor Jews.I also know Anderson altered the phrase "low class Jews" to "low class Polish Jews" for his autobiography,perhaps to appease.Whatever the truth of the matter,Greenberg [aka Mentor ] "appears" to be speaking in his article on behalf of those Jewish families living close to the murder sites,which would be the poor Polish Immigrant Jews of Whitechapel I would have thought?
Thanks for you input anyway.

[rjpalmer]

Natalie/Stewart - What does it really mean to say, 'the case was not solved?'

Obviously, there was no trial.

Obviously, no one stood over the Ripper at No. 29 Hanbury Street as his knife flecked backsplash, and then bent over to see his face.

So, in that sense, yes.

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.' But the interesting thing is that that didn't stop them. They (and others) still held strong beliefs and emotions about the case, and this, again, signals that there was something exceedingly interesting going on behind the scenes.

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.

That, I'm afraid, is what I've come to believe, and I think I can argue the point with anyone. All the best.

[Howard Brown]

Stephen:

One of the important aspects about how the Blackwood's article was handled ( Nats mentioned Mentor's work ) is that to me, and maybe me alone, the lumping of all Jews in one basket because it did not delineate which Jews SRA was referring to is what inspired those Jews to send letters to the press in the first place,while Smith may have had other axes to grind.. Anyone who takes the time, and you know I have some similar links up over on the Forums, to read what contemporary Jews said to distinguish themselves from newly arrived Jews will see that not all was as "unified" or "all for one" among the Jewish community. That was a natural consequence of events which up until and during the mid- 20th century made itself present in American life,if not British society.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,Roger,its quite simple really,as Keats said,
"Beauty is truth and truth beauty,that is all there is and all you need to know"
Good to see you back!
Norma

Stephen,
Its possible he wished people to think the police had not failed in their hunt for the ripper.

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

[Howard Brown]

And because they couldn't save him they now do all in their power to mislead the Whitechapel Police in their search for Jack The Ripper.

If accurate, that's certainly any interesting example of anti-semitism in the Metropolitan C.I.D. a year or so after the period of the murders.

What it might also signify is that Anderson did clarify his statement to avoid being lumped in with those who made sweeping generalizations such as the one recorded by Davis.

[rjpalmer]

Mark Furman was a racist, ergo O.J. Simpson was innocent. What a simple science 'Ripperology' is...

Unfortunately, historians can't afford to think like jail house lawyers.

[Natalie Severn]

Ok-you are a real "ladies man" How!

Chris,good point.

[Howard Brown]

Nats:

I think you'll remember when you and I argued together on the same side contra Mr. Begg on whether SRA was a racist and/or an elitist and I still think he was an elitist rather than an anti-Semite...but for the sake of not arguing with your,dear friend, whatever you care to believe is fine with me and of course, I respect that. I think its more productive if we all steered clear of the "low class" comment and stick to the issue of whether Anderson had a basis for his declaration or whether he simply talking out of his toches. But maybe thats just me.

Later,sweet potater

[Chris]

In Chapter Thirty of The Ultimate Sourcebook by Keith Skinner ...

I could have sworn someone else had a hand in that book too ...

Most of the money of all the Jews in Whitechapel went to pay for his defense. They petitioned the Queen and they retained the best barristers in London,but they could not save. And because they couldn't save him they now do all in their power to mislead the Whitechapel Police in their search for Jack The Ripper. This is Lipski's coat. You can see where the vitriol has burnt it. It was one of the strongest evidences for the prosecution.

If accurate, that's certainly any interesting example of anti-semitism in the Metropolitan C.I.D. a year or so after the period of the murders.

[Natalie Severn]

How,
We could go on like this indefinitely but lets agree to differ.
In this case I prefer to accept the words of the gentleman Jew himself,Leopold Jacob Greenberg ,Editor of the Jewish Chronicle,who,in 1910 , unequivocally expressed his outrage at Robert Anderson"s articles telling readers of Blackwoods Magazine that Jews had been responsible for sheltering Jack the Ripper,the author of a particularly horrific series of murders, from Gentile Justice.
He was supported in his reaction by the City Commissioner of Police,Henry Smith,who also deplored Anderson"s remarks stating they were both reckless and suggesting Anderson"s assertion that it was a"definitely ascertained fact" that he knew the identity of Jack the Ripper and where he had lived was untrue and utter nonsense-moreover that the Ripper had them all beat ,every policeman in London ,and in the twenty years since the murders happened, nobody was any wiser about who he was or where he had lived.He also suggests that the Jewish Community were decent law abiding citizens---a lot better behaved as far as the law was concerned than some of the Gentile Community of the East End.
In addition to Henry Smith"s comments ,also made in 1910, there was Abberline who agreed that all talk of lunatics in asylums and drowned doctors was a lot of rubbish.[He ofcourse thought Chapman was the ripper at one point in 1903].
And there were the rest of the senior police ,equally nonplussed.
By the way, with regards to all this talk about "unco-operative" local Jews,I think it was actually Swanson who wrote in one of his reports following the house to house searches in a mostly Jewish area of Whitechapel,that all residents had been most cooperative.It was either him or one of his men who said that which contradicts this chap in the Black Museum you refer to.
With Best Wishes Howard,
Norma

[Howard Brown]

Dear Nats:

Perhaps if I was Jewish in 1910...I might feel a little upset about what Anderson was saying in Blackwood's about the "low class" comment. Again, the real issue we ought to be focusing on is that the Ripper was identified according to Anderson. Smith was, according to reports, a professional rival of Anderson at some point and this "rivalry" may have compelled Smith to engage in his attempt at defusing what Anderson said to some degree.

However I think that the reaction by other people 25 years after the fact was or is a case of Anderson not clarifying what he originally meant to say and the response a little overboards. That Anderson claims the Ripper was apprehended seems to run a sure second to the emphasis that Anderson placed on the ethnic makeup or class distinction of the actual culprit.




http://docs.newsbank.com/s/HistArchi...20FECAAFCBE6ED

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.

Davis also made a report of his visit to Scotland Yard's Black Museum which appeared in the Omaha Daily World Herald on Page 2, January 13,1890, 2 months and 9 days after the Moore Interview in the PMG article.

I won't reproduce all of the article...you can look it up yourself..but the section that I will transcribe is fairly important in light of all the huzzah over Anderson being some sort of anti-Semite.

Anderson's comment on the "low class Jew" is obscuring the more important part of his Blackwood's article,in my view. I have found several URL's from Jews on Jews which make Anderson's comments look tame. These were met with no such outcry as Anderson's were.

Anyway, here goes:

"The detective struck a match so that we could see our way down to a narrow passage and a crooked flight of steps. The steps led into a small whitewashed cellar with a wooden floor and a skylight set in one corner of the ceiling. Outside, the high walls around the brick court known as Scotland yard shut out all but a faint,foggy light. the detective lit a gas jet and said with a wave of the hand: "This is what we call the Black museum. These are the relics of all the principal crimes that have made any talk in London for over fifty years."

The detective picked up a long thin bottle, tightly corked and half filled with a dark,oily liquid. "This is vitriol", my guide said, shaking the bottle. " A Polish Jew grew jealous of a woman and threw her down and poured part of this stuff down her throat. A horrible death,sir, but he hung for it. Most of the money of all the Jews in Whitechapel went to pay for his defense. They petitioned the Queen and they retained the best barristers in London,but they could not save. And because they couldn't save him they now do all in their power to mislead the Whitechapel Police in their search for Jack The Ripper. This is Lipski's coat. You can see where the vitriol has burnt it. It was one of the strongest evidences for the prosecution."-end

As you can see in the underlined passage from this article.... 24 years before Anderson would utter something with far less opprobrium...others may have felt as he did himself.

This was written by a man describing a policeman conducting a tour of the Black Museum during the time of the murders...

I am not sure if this "tour" was conducted in 1889,as the date of the article infers...but its well before Anderson's famous faux pas on the subject.

[Stephen Thomas]

It's all very well to argue secrecy as regards press and public but the official files were totally confidential (until the 1970s) and they clearly show that the senior police officers and the Home Office had no idea who Jack the Ripper was then, nor at any time since.

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?

[Mitch Rowe]

No doubt about it.

Unfortunately this idea does not withstand scrutiny. There is no way that the case was solved in 1888/9, or at any time after. It's all very well to argue secrecy as regards press and public but the official files were totally confidential (until the 1970s) and they clearly show that the senior police officers and the Home Office had no idea who Jack the Ripper was then, nor at any time since.

It dont make any sense that Police knew. I mean why would they lie to Abberline and keep him in the dark? Theres no way Abberline knew. He tells the reporter he is writing to MacNaghten about Chapman and sure enough the reporter sees the evidence of that on Abberlines desk. Then Abberline goes on to defend himself by saying there is no way he could not know that the Ripper had been found. Not only that. Then Abberline shows this reporter a document. Described as a recent document. Wich proves to the reporter beyond all doubt that Police were still looking for the Ripper.

Im willing to bet Abberline had alot of friends he could count on to tell him if a major break happens in the Ripper case. Not only Police but others involved with police that would have witnessed something.

For the big guys to know who the Ripper was. The little guys have to find him. Im sure Abberline was very close friends with alot of little guys.