Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Stewart P Evans]

There has been much discussion lately on Anderson, instigated by the recent podcast, so I feel that a thread specifically dedicated to Anderson is called for.

Some feel that Anderson's writings and claims raise more questions than answers. Indeed there are several pertinent questions that spring immediately to mind, such as -

What sort of man goes on sick leave for a month, just one week after he has taken up such an important new post?

Why would the alleged identification of the Jewish suspect by a Jewish witness be considered to be so secret and known to so few?

How could such an alleged identification be revealed by only Anderson (publicly years later) and Swanson (privately) for over 100 years?

Why is there no official mention of any such positive identification being made?

What could possibly be so secret or damaging to the reputation of the CID in identifying a Poor Polish Jew as 'Jack the Ripper'?

Anderson has received much criticism and comment over the years, and this started at the end of his first week in office, as he travelled to Switzerland -

"Dr. Anderson, the new chief of the Detective Department, will now have an admirable opportunity of showing that wits sharpened by reflections upon the deeper problems of 'Human Destiny' and the millennium are quite capable of grappling with the mundane problems of the detection of crime."

[mac-the-kipper]

How long was it between him being appointed to taking up his post? Do we know why he went sick? Could have been something like a hernia that needed sorting?

[DVV]

Poor Robert was tired and went to Switzerland for a "recuperative holiday".
He obviously needed some rest.
But he never got enough.

[Stewart P Evans]

Appointed

How long was it between him being appointed to taking up his post? Do we know why he went sick? Could have been something like a hernia that needed sorting?

Anderson was appointed as 3rd Assistant Commissioner on 25 August 1888 and took up his post on 1 September 1888. He went on sick leave on 7 September 1888 with a throat problem.

[Natalie Severn]

I am glad you have started this thread Stewart.I noted that on another thread Martin Fido was talking about Anderson"s writings.Well I myself have read his autobiography,The Lighter Side of My Official Life ,published in 1910.
I must admit I found myself in complete agreement with Henry Smith, the City Chief Commissioner of Police, who was gobsmacked on reading Anderson"s claim in this autobiography ,that "he knew the identity of the Ripper".
Smith who,as a City Police Chief was actually "present" at the fourth murder site , Mitre Square,only a couple of hours after it happened must have known whether Anderson was speaking the truth surely? And yet he is absolutely "emphatic"that Anderson was not speaking the truth ."NONE of us knew"he claims in frustration at the absurdity of it presumably.mOreover for Anderson to claim to know the identity of the ripper orwhere he lived -ie "-among the Polish Jewish community" is palpable nonsense and actually he states, much worse than nonsense to irresponsibly come out in print and blacken a decent good living Jewish community in this way when they could put many of the locals to shame with regards to being a mostly very law abiding community.He expresses his outrage loudly and clearly---together with an insistence that Anderson"s comments are outrageously unfair and untrue about the Jewish Community Anderson" blames "for "being unwilling to hand over one of their own for Gentile justice".
He finishes by saying nobody knew the identity of the Ripper "he had us all beaten".

Now why on earth would a City Police Chief,very interested in the case as well as having been on the scene of the Mitre Square victim, a police chief who must have had reports on a "City Police suspect" [as referred to by Cox etc]----why would he pour such outraged scorn on Anderson"s claim if there was an iota of truth in it?
Thats a serious question for me, and I am not at all happy about those whose answer is simply that Smith"s own autobiography is flawed---just like Anderson"s is and Macnaghten"s autobiographies, neatly avoided so we need not address such a question seriously?
Best
Norma

[Fisherman]

Don´t you think, Natalie, that Smith would have been more upset by the fact that Anderson put himself forward as the senior officer who had the better knowledge, than by any real knowledge - or even well-grounded suspicion - that Anderson was in fact wrong?
Having been part of an investigation that led nowhere, it would be more comfortable to share defeat with the rest of the big-wigs, methinks. I smell a battle of prestige a long way here...

The best,
Fisherman

[robhouse]

Natalie,

You say: "Anderson"s comments are outrageously unfair and untrue about the Jewish Community Anderson" blames "for "being unwilling to hand over one of their own for Gentile justice"."

Anderson’s statement should not in my opinion be interpreted as saying the Jews were hiding or protecting the Ripper per se, but rather, that they were protecting the Jewish community as a whole from being scapegoated for the crimes, as would certainly have happened if it were revealed the Ripper was a Jew. As Anderson says, he did not intend that his words should be construed as “an aspersion upon Jews” in general.

Both the witness and Kozminski’s family must have been aware that if a Jew was convicted of the Ripper murdrers, all hell would break loose in the East End. The immigrant Jews of the area were clearly worried about the very real threat of pogroms breaking out in London as they had in Russia. And in fact, Anderson’s claims are supported by the Anglo-Jewish author and frequent contributor to the Jewish Chronicle Chaim Bermant, who wrote:

“If the Ripper was a Jew, then one can be fairly certain his fellows would have kept quiet about it for the simple reason that the whole community could have been held culpable for his deeds, and that the menacing mood of hostility which surrounded them would have given way to outright violence.”

Mentor himself also conceded this point when he wrote: “what is more natural than the man’s hesitancy to identify another as Jack the Ripper so soon as he knew he was a Jew?”

So I am not sure Anderson's statements on this point were as far-fetched as you seem to be suggesting.

Rob H

[Natalie Severn]

These are Anderson"s words Rob:


One need not be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulant type;that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders; and that,if he was not living absolutely alone,HIS PEOPLE KNEW OF HIS GUILT,AND REFUSED TO GIVE HIM UP TO JUSTICE.

He then goes on to write about the house to house searches that took place and writes......

"------for it is a remarkable fact [ a fact?] that people of that class [low class Polish Jews] will not give up one of their number to Gentile Justice"

I need to find another quote but his statement can not in my view be clearer.He is stating that the Ripper was a low class Polish Jew who was shielded from justice by his low class Jewish family because that was the way such Polish Jews behaved.The quote I will look for is by Henry smith who states Anderson must have taken leave of his senses if he imagines the Jewish community is unaware that they could face a lifetime of penal servitude for aiding and abbetting a murderer.Moreover he insists the Ripper had us all completely beat.Anderson is talking rubbish.

[Natalie Severn]

Rob,
The quote from Sir Henry Smith regarding Sir Robert Anderson"s claim that the East End Jews protected the murderer as one of their own which Smith called a "reckless accusation":
" Surely",he wrote,"Sir Robert cannot believe that while the Jews....were entering into this conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice,there was no one among them with sufficient knowledge of the criminal law to warn them of the risks they were running".[he adds a footnote pointing out that in murder cases accessories after the fact were liable to penal servitude for life."
Nor was Henry Smith alone.Abberline was just as emphatic on March 23 1903 "You must understand that we have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead ,or that he was a lunatic,or anything of that kind.And so it went on---there were a number of police such as Reid, Dew, Arnold etc.all stating the Ripper"s identity was unknown.

Returning to Abberline he added later that March , "You can state most emphatically, that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."
Best Norma

[robhouse]

Natalie,

I think you missed my point. I am saying that it is perhaps not so much rubbish as you suggest. Any Jewish family that suspected a family member was the Ripper would be in a very difficult position, even if they wanted to turn the person over to justice. The entire Jewish community would be scapegoated - this is pretty obvious, given the animosity that existed at the time. The East End in that regard was a sort of powder keg. Also, Anderson's comments may relate to the witness as much as to the family. But again we have the same situation.

And it has been corroborated by Jewish sources that the immigrant Jews did not trust the police, so I dont think Anderson's statement is racist as you say... there was some truth in it, and it reflected the difficult situation given the anti-semitism in the East End at the time. (There is also another Jewish source that corroborates this also, but I am unable to recall it now. I think it is in the "Trial of Israel Lipski" but I am not certain.)

I think your venomous attack on Anderson as racist and a bigot is a bit over the top. I am in fact a bit confused why you attack Anderson with such apparent hatred, saying for example that he should have been in an asylum etc. I just dont get it. It seems unwarranted.

Anderson's position is essentially repeated in at least 3 JEWISH sources, including Mentor. If I am completely off the mark here someone please correct me.

But I am not sure myself if a Jew at that time would have been inclined to turn over a family member to the police, for the reasons I have given.

RH

[Stephen Thomas]

Both the witness and Kozminski’s family must have been aware that if a Jew was convicted of the Ripper murdrers, all hell would break loose in the East End. The immigrant Jews of the area were clearly worried about the very real threat of pogroms breaking out in London as they had in Russia. And in fact, Anderson’s claims are supported by the Anglo-Jewish author and frequent contributor to the Jewish Chronicle Chaim Bermant, who wrote:

“If the Ripper was a Jew, then one can be fairly certain his fellows would have kept quiet about it for the simple reason that the whole community could have been held culpable for his deeds, and that the menacing mood of hostility which surrounded them would have given way to outright violence.”

Hi Rob

Yes, well said, and I believe that the Police and Home Office would have been of the same opinion. Had JTR been shown to be a Jew then extreme public disorder would have been a distinct possibility. The Jewish Authorities had done the government a very big favour the previous year by getting Lipski to confess to the Batty Street murder and this favour could well have been reciprocated by the Brits. Personally I believe, repeat 'believe', that this case was solved in late 1888 or early 1889, possibly (dare I say it?) from the Hutchinson sighting and that there was an official cover-up thereafter with all the important police officials simply denying that JTR had been caught. They would say that, wouldn't they, in the circumstances.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Norma

Its all very well using names like Racists and Bigoted to describe Anderson, but where us kids have problems piecing it together is when we are only given the example ‘low class polish Jew’, which to be honest, in terms of the time, doesn’t actually seem very racist or bigoted. So I guess what we would all like are better and clearer examples of Anderson being Racist and bigoted. Before we all actually pass judgment.

Fore instance you talk about Anderson besmirching Parnell? But isn’t it equally true that Monroe was involved in this? And also closer to senior-level undercover activities than Anderson? And Monroe shared Anderson’s religious beliefs; those beliefs were not extreme for there time? Though they may appear so today.

Anderson along with a great many people, were opposed to home rule and believed Parnell to be a supporter of the Cln-na-Gael, so what distinguishes him from all the others?

What we’re looking for are specifics that set Anderson apart as a racist and bigot, from his peers that is. Judging Anderson by todays standards really is of little use.

The Kid

[Natalie Severn]

No Rob,
I did not miss your point. I am still trying to track down reliable sources,which I know exist,clearly demonstrating that other Jewish writers did not agree with the claim that the ripper was in any way either connected with the slaughter and mutilation of the five women ,or that he would have been protected by the Jewish community from facing justice had he been the murderer.
There are in fact several texts to my knowledge that demonstrate just how insulted numbers of notable Jewish people felt by such claims at the time but I cant do this in just a few hours and need to look up some books over the weekend.
Its really a bit of a cop out to claim that I am motivated by a hatred for Anderson.It serves only to diminish the case I am making.
I believe that it is unwise to put too much trust in Anderson who has written so misleadingly about a man he claims was Jack the Ripper.There are so many errors in his case many of which can be categorically denied.If you want I will spell them all out over the weekend but I am tired now and need time .
One thing seems abundantly clear though: Macnaghten, Smith and Abberline must have known the truth about Kosminski,and had they known who the ripper was we would too and they would have been only too delighted to tell us I am sure.
It is true I am not over impressed by Anderson as a particularly "likeable" person .His claim,for example, that his policy of warning prostitutes that the police would not protect them actually ended street murders in the Jack the Ripper series after the the double event ,is not only an error[ to put it kindly] but also seems particularly heartless when most of the women on the streets of the East End at the time had no other job available to them and were destitute.Contrast his attitude to that of Abberline who often gave them sixpence for a bed and said it disturbed him to see so many vulnerable women out and about during the ripper scare without a home to go to or the money for a bed.
No, I dont warm to Anderson,though I dont think either that he was a liar exactly,but rather that he came to believe what he wanted to believe rather than what was.
Anyway
Cheers for now
Norma
I will leave it at that for now

[Natalie Severn]

Jeff,

There were plenty of people about who were not racist at that time.
Read about them in the books on the East End by Professor William Fishman -University of London [ he is a Jewish author who is in no doubt at all about how racist Anderson was see page 268 East End 1888 - Fishman ] or Jerry White another East End Author and a Professor of London History at Birkbeck.

Both these men spoke at the recent Museum of Docklands lecture series on Jack the Ripper and the East End .
Best
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

Personally I believe, repeat 'believe', that this case was solved in late 1888 or early 1889, possibly (dare I say it?) from the Hutchinson sighting and that there was an official cover-up thereafter with all the important police officials simply denying that JTR had been caught. They would say that, wouldn't they, in the circumstances.

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.