Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[fido]

First, obviously, I must apologize very sincerely to Stewart for my ill-bred drunken remarks at the Norwich conference. They fully justify his tendency to slip into a tone of asperity with me, and I will cease to complain about it.

Natalie - I'm sorry, I don't really understand the point you are making, and I don't recognize your account of my research methods, which I think I have explained elsewhere in a recent posting. But my trawl through the HUGE thread on Eddowes' kidney last night revealed that, however much you have been convinced by Christy Campbell's view of Anderson, you really do appreciate the excellence of Paul Begg's The Facts and the really interesting arguments he puts forward in it. This forgives a multitude of sins!

Autospirograph - I'm interested in your offer, but again don't quite understand it. In any case, the Ripper boards are something I don't look at very often, and then only with cause. I did so when we were working on the new A to Z. I am doing so now because of the upcoming Knoxville conference, and am actually trawling through everything on them for that purpose, (and certainly not to look out what anybody has said about me. It was the frequency of Stewart's claims that Paul and I lack objectivity, and the preposterous revival of insinuations that the Swanson marginalia may be tainted by tampering or forgery, persistently followed up by even more vehement assertions from Natalie and others, that led me to embroil myself in disputation. And I ran back through this thread and this thread only for my previous posting, to make sure that everything I said about the nature of Stewart's posts could be justified). But the truth is the Ripper is far from the centre of my life at present. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Paul's The Facts since, as I told him, I had not felt any I great enthusiasm about The Definitive History. I was astonished by how impressive van Onselen's - (sorry about my misspelling last night) - methodological chapter was after the unpersuasiveness of his initial suggestion of Silver as the Ripper, until I googled him and discovered what a major scholar had stepped (or perhaps one should say slipped) into the field. And while I look forward immensely to reading Rob's 22-page account of Kosminski. which I have downloaded and printed for easy reading as I commute to work, the truth is that I get more pleasure out of reading Harold Bloom on The Merchant of Venice these days than anything on the Ripper or any other criminal.

The two things unknown to me in Phil's book when it came out were the detailed suggested identification of Smith's suspect as Morford or Orford (pp156-157) and the man seen in Church Lane after the Stride murder (pp 212-213). My disappointment at the lack of more new information was really a tribute to the amount of work done by previous Ripper researchers and not a criticism of Phil. I was amazed that the ground had been covered so thoroughly. If I wished to criticize Phil's work it would be on the quality of the brief argumentative sections, not the thorough coverage of press and archive material.

I have no serious interest in carrying disputation for disputation's sake any further. I have made the point that it is useless to discuss the importance of a historical personality's ethical and cultural background with commentators who insist that they can judge it without studying it. It doesn't concern me at all that my theory about David Cohen is rejected by scholars who try to cut the Gordian knot of Swanson's, Anderson's and Macnaghten's confused and contradictory accounts by speculatively suggesting forgery, or mendacity or senility on the part of any of them, or accuse me of bad scholarly method and pass on without addressing the issues. Paul Begg and Don Rumbelow (so far, as far as I know) are the two people who have raised demurrers based on acceptance of the clear facts before us, and to Don's objection ("There must be a simpler explanation") I can only agree that I wish it were so, and wait for some one to put one forward.

So I may return if someone who has thoroughly studied Anderson's beliefs and background comes forward with reasons for challenging his veracity, or someone with new facts or a clearly sensible reinterpretation of known ones offers reasons for doubting his position or reassessing Swanson's and/or Macnaghten's. Tomorrow essays for grading start to come in. On Tuesday I'm back in the classroom and have to get all my marking cleared up before I leave for Knoxville at the end of the week. So I'm unlikely to be back after tomorrow.

All the best,
Martin F

All the best,
Martin F

[The Good Michael]

First, obviously, I must apologize very sincerely to Stewart for my ill-bred drunken remarks at the Norwich conference. They fully justify his tendency to slip into a tone of asperity with me, and I will cease to complain about it.

What a load of disingenuousness. Stewart needs no one to go to bat for him here, as he has handled himself as a gentleman. Yet, to suggest that he has a propensity toward harshness based upon a prior history with you, is to say, "You are being an arse, but I understand why." It is hardly an apology. Anyone who has been reading these exchanges, can see from whence the arrogance and effrontery emanate, and make no mistake about that.

Mike

[fido]

I'm sorry, Mike, that was certainly not my intention. I have detected occasional asperity in Stewart's remarks about my work (aas well as, of course, other remarks that were warm and complimentary). I shall be careful not to respond in kind as I accept that I asked for it.
Martin F

[The Good Michael]

Martin,

I apologize for being somewhat huffy. Stewart spends quite a bit of time and effort on this site, teaching us many things. I have found him quite gracious.

I also wanted to say that I have found some of your research about Jews and prostitution quoted on several sites. I find that history absolutely fascinating and somewhat hidden, or forgotten. Just from the little I've read, I say kudos to you for your research.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

As a matter of fact, most of my efforts over the last couple of years have been directed towards trying to get the basic facts about Aaron Kozminski and his family right. But obviously that kind of thing is beneath Martin Fido's notice.

Hi Martin

It’s been great having you around and I've very much enjoyed some of the exchanges with Stewart (not the personal stuff) but the Anderson info, most helpful.

Just to comment on Chris Philips post. Chris requires no defense from me, however I think you have been somewhat hard, wrong, in your assessment of his position. The work he has done with Rob House on Aaron Kosminski has been new exciting and ground breaking and it is unfortunate that you and he should clash in such a way, given what you have both contributed on the subject.

I hope the conference goes well for you and I also hope that you continue to drop bye from time to time, as despite what may sometimes appear apparent, some posters on casebook are more than appreciative at what such debate can offer, and enjoy them immensely, even if at times we don’t all fully see eye to eye on various subjects.

It would be most unfortunate if such exchanges were done on a private site…And despite the fact that I’ve gotten in so much trouble for saying so, I still hold the belief that this exchange on Anderson would have been better done on podcast than in these over lapping posts…FACT.

Anyway your posts have certainly give everyone room for serious thought and consideration. Hope you don’t mind if I still sit on the fence with regards to Anderson. I’m still digging on Parnell.

Hopefully see you here again.

Pirate.

[Cap'n Jack]

'First, obviously, I must apologize very sincerely to Stewart for my ill-bred drunken remarks at the Norwich conference.'

And there was little 'ol me thinking I was the only ill-bred drunk in the 'ouse.

[rjpalmer]

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 -- Sorry. I agree with you and should have been more clear. I was not referring to the Littlechild Letter; I was referring to the inteview with Littlechild (first mentioned, I think, in your first book) where he discusses the difference between 'moral proof' and 'legal evidence'---which, of course, is precisely the same point later adopted by Rbt. Anderson, who then applied it to the Polish Jew suspect. We don't know that Littlechild was referring to the Ripper case when he made the remark, but I find it provocative that Anderson later used it in that context.

[rjpalmer]

Hi RJ,

How many in Scotland Yard might have been in on this damn good idea?

I must admit I can’t see why they would be so troubled all the while it remained only a damn good idea. Damn good ideas can be kept out of harm’s way as long as nobody feels the need to parade them as definitely ascertained facts. That's when they have the potential to do harm, surely?

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?

Good questions by Caz, and I think this runs to the heart of the matter.

I can certainly understand why 'mainstream' students of the case are skeptical of anything approaching a 'conspiracy theory,' but I personally feel that the historical record is being seriously misread --and has been for years---and that there is substantial evidence that a small number of senior officers at Scotland Yard all suspected the same man, who, however, was never named openly, but just sits their like a hole in the conversation.

You emphasize the word 'they,' as if to remind us there was clearly no unity of opinion among members of the Metropolitan police. Quite true, and conventional wisdom points out that these opinions were so varied as to look like utter choas: Macnaghten plumping for Druitt; Anderson for an unnamed Jew; Abberline for Klosowski; etc., etc But, that said, these divergent opinions are complex and have to be studied in the context they were given if we are to discern the full conversation.

Let me give you one example.

Inspector Edmund Reid. Here is a bloke who is one of the strongest arguments that the Met had 'no idea' who the Ripper was. Reid said --again & again without hesitation--that the Ripper was not known, and that the opinions in print were bunk.

The fly in the ointment is that Reid was not a member of Scotland Yard. He was the local inspector in H-Divison. Unlike our wise friend here, Stewart Evans, I've never worked in the police, so I have to step aside and accept his advise on these topics, but, that said, I've worked in a corporation and I think I have some insight into how the hierarchy of these instituitions work. The men with the blue-collar family backgrounds (and I'm one of them) always give short shrift to the opinions of the men at the Central Office. Their argument is that they are the ones who do the footwork, and the ones that know their districts. The last thing a man like Reid is going to admit is that the educated, public schooled, pencil pushing blokes at Scotland Yard could have known something about the case that he didn't. Meanwhile, the record shows that much of what Reid beleived about the case was utterly inaccurate.

In reality, --and having worked at a corporation--Redi's blue-collar viewpoint is simply too simpistic to be true. There certainly ARE times when things become apparent to those at the adminstrative level that aren't apparent to the men on the 'beat.' So I think Reid's denial really tells us very little about the suspicions at Scotland Yard; it tells us more about l'esprit du corps of Reid and the H-Division men like him.


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. Sadler, Kozminski, and Cutbush tell us quite alot about the Francis Coles investigation. They tell us nothing about the events of 1888. What is obvious to me is that much of the chit-chat of the senior officers amount to nothing more then wishfulfillment, where they are taking the events of 1891 and transposing them backwards as if they had some relevance to the investigation they botched in 1888. Anderson is clearly doing this; nearly every single word he ever published in relationship to the Ripper case can be traced back to a specific criticism made about his investigation in print. Reid is but one example. Reid scoffed at the “Sherlock Holmses” who said they had solved the case; Anderson responds by saying “It didn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to....” Anderson is DIRECTLY responding to Reid. What is happening is a conversation --in print-- between a Divisional Inspector and a Senior Officer at Scotland Yard and their respective insights into police work and the Ripper investigation.

But the important thing is what ISN'T being said.

[Cap'n Jack]

Greetings RJP...where you been? Riting a book, or a wrong?
As you'll know, old boy, me belief is that all that nonsense from ol' Scotland Bard was now't but disinformation, cleverly designed to do exactly what it does today, confuse and baffle us, and lead us down any garden path to end in a maze cleverly constructed by the master of mazes.
You would be amazed.

[rjpalmer]

Follow that garden path carefully, Old Boy, or you'll end up in Broadmoor instead of Mountjoy Square.

RP

[Cap'n Jack]

I've already been to Broadmoor, RJP, didn't care for it much, the billiard table was only half-size, and they never buttered the currant buns.
As you'll know I'm more of a Mountgay man.

[Natalie Severn]

I think it important here to explain what I mean when I say that Anderson"s assertions arise simply from prejudice or anti semitism or racism if you like.
There seems to be a consensus here among certain people that there was neither institutional or personal racism in either Robert Anderson or the Victorian Police.I have been asked to provide instances of it as though it were like a two times table.Well it aint like that at all.
We are talking institutional power within a system.The statements Robert anderson made about a "low class Polish Jew" being Jack the Ripper and being harboured by his people, who by definition ,are also "low class Polish Jews ",can be seen as linked to his statements about the "degraded " women "of a certain class "who were the victims of Jack the Ripper".Their respective oppressions,and specifically their poverty and powerlessness, were symbiotic.
So no,Anderson was most definitely not accusing anyone from the middle classes , the Rabbis ,the Sweat shop owners ,the factory owners with one or two of whom he had managed to establish a reasonably cordial relationship .Rather his prejudice was firmly targeted at the recently arrived Eastern European Jews who attended those pesky clubs like the ones in Berner street and who found themselves at the point of their arrival exploited and oppressed and therefore in struggle about their working conditions, and poverty. Demonstrations and agitation about their starvation wages,the appalling factory and sweat shop conditions ,had led them into direct conflict with the law,with Robert Anderson"s power base, just as women "prowling the streets after midnight" led the prostitutes of Whitechapel into conflict with the law and Robert Anderson"s power base.The two are linked and its no accident that the two were targeted by Robert Anderson.
But its quite wrong to see racism/anti semitism as some sort of body of thought or holistic ideology.Its much more complex.It changes its contours according to changes in the advance of certain sections of that community viz the more prosperous Jews at the time were less likely to bear the brunt of anti semitism than the recently arrived "destitute" ones.

[Chris]

There seems to be a consensus here among certain people that there was neither institutional or personal racism in either Robert Anderson or the Victorian Police.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there wouldn't have been antisemitic individuals within the police force.

I think it's more a question of whether antisemitic behaviour by police officers would have been generally viewed as acceptable within the force. That's what I would be sceptical about accepting without evidence.

[rjpalmer]

So no,Anderson was most definitely not accusing anyone from the middle classes.

Natalie, is the irony intended?

Despite your ire for Anderson, exactly the same thing can be said of 9 out of 10 'serious' students of the Whitechapel murder case, and 19 out of 20 American 'profilers'--- all of whom invariably incorporate --often with aggression--the same conventional wisdom that the Ripper was a local working-class non-entity. Hence the soft parade of rude boys from the hood: Hutchinson, Barnett, Bury, Richardson, etc.

What, precisely, is the difference between Anderson's 'diagnosis' and an F.B.I. 'profile?' The difference seems negligible; just one is tauted as politically incorrect, the other as science.

[Natalie Severn]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there wouldn't have been antisemitic individuals within the police force.

I think it's more a question of whether antisemitic behaviour by police officers would have been generally viewed as acceptable within the force. That's what I would be sceptical about accepting without evidence.

Chris,
I reckon a Polish Jewish shoemaker named John Pizer could give you chapter and verse for Monday 10th September 1888---and the activities of every policeman in the met for over a week were rushing in that direction!