Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This is from The Times, 30th July 1888—



Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[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.