Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Chris]

And after Kosminsky had been confined, somebody in the Met learned about the City's poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel who went into Colney Hatch, and assumed this was the same person. Since the City had watched him at his brother's house, they knew the name (again, as Don pointed out to me), and so the Met accepted this piece of the jigsaw, accidentally confusing the man who they knew had died with the man who would live until 1917 [1919].
...
Anderson and Swanson plumped for the Polish Jew who, as Macnaghten's reference to his visual similarity suggests, had been given some sort of witness identification, and who they now believed wrongly was the man called Kosminsky who had been followed by the City Police.

So the idea, basically, is that Anderson and Swanson had solved the Whitechapel Murders by having Cohen identified by a witness. But unfortunately both of them had forgotten his name (or perhaps had never bothered to ask what it was). And at some later date somebody from the City Police mentioned a Polish Jew they had had under surveillance - no doubt one of dozens, or perhaps hundreds. So Anderson and Swanson immediately jumped to the conclusion that it must be the same man they had had identified - despite the fact that their man had been arrested by the Met without City involvement, and had had no relatives, whereas the City suspect had been watched at his brother's house.

Rather than postulating such a bizarre sequence of events, wouldn't it be simpler to suppose that Swanson merely made a mistake about when Aaron Kozminski died?

(Cohen, of course, ws the ONLY Whitechapel Jew to die prematurely during the period).

I was going to ask about your previous statement that Cohen was the only "poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel" who died in Colney Hatch before 1895. Now apparently he is the only Whitechapel Jew "to die prematurely during the period" - which I'm afraid obviously isn't true.

I'm sure it would be very helpful to future researchers if you could put on record exactly what you did check in this regard. For example, did you check the dates of death of all the Jews with an address in Whitechapel who were committed to Colney Hatch in the period 1888-1895, and find that Cohen was the only one who was dead by the time of Swanson's statement? (I think I'm right in saying that the Colney Hatch records don't note the country of birth, or the social class of inmates.)

[Stewart P Evans]

R. Harding Davis

In August 1889 the American journalist R. Harding Davis was granted an interview with Anderson. This appeared, over here, in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 4, 1889. This interview has never been quoted by Martin, even to dismiss it, in any of his books but its relevance to his theory is apparent and surely subscribers to his theorising should be aware of it in order to take it into consideration as Anderson speaks of "our failure to find Jack the Ripper" in it -



Surely students and scholars of the case are entitled to draw their own scholarly conclusions from this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Crime

Anderson was publishing his ideas on crime and punishment as early as 1891 and felt that organised and systematic 'might be stamped out in a single generation.'

[Stewart P Evans]

Booth

In his 1891 piece Anderson makes an interesting reference to "General" Booth and his "cab-horse charter", raising the fallen -

[Stewart P Evans]

Deserving of the Gallows

Anderson felt that habitual criminals (recidivists) were 'deserving of the gallows', again from his 1891 piece -

[Stewart P Evans]

1892 Interview

Anderson again made reference to the 'still undiscovered crimes' of 1888 in this June 1892 interview in Cassell's Saturday Journal -

[Stewart P Evans]

Implications

The above piece from Cassell's Saturday Journal of Saturday, June 11, 1892 which I discovered a few years back, is worthy of closer examination. For the Cassell's reporter has obviously mentioned to Anderson the still unsolved ('undiscovered') Whitechapel murders of 1888 and the question of theories about the murders.

Anderson's response is to show his interviewer photographs of the victims and state, "There, there is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders. It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man - they were those of a maniac revelling in blood." The date here is very significant, for it is four years after the murders and seventeen months after Aaron Kosminski's detention. There was no Ripper hue and cry in the press or public arena in mid-1892.

The implications of this for the pro-Anderson lobby aren't good. Martin's theory is in tatters, and the case against Aaron Kosminski isn't looking too good either. Why doesn't Anderson respond with 'the offender has been committed to an asylum' (as he does three years later) or 'the offender is now dead' (as per Martin's theory), or even merely say that 'we are satisfied that the criminal is no longer a threat.' There is no apparent need for secrecy.

However, the pro-Anderson debaters will wriggle and produce all sorts of excuses such as it was too early for Anderson to reveal anything &c. &c. But this small piece is deserving of a very close look and analysis. The Anderson arguers always require an element of secrecy and duplicity to carry their theorising forward. The simple answer is that by mid-1892 the 'caged in an asylum' theory hadn't yet fully formed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Identification of Criminals

And here's Anderson in 1894 talking of identifications -

[Stewart P Evans]

Swanson Theory

And the 'Swanson theory' mentioned in the Pall Mall Gazette of May 7, 1895 -

[Stewart P Evans]

Major Arthur Griffiths

Major Arthur Griffiths was a close friend of both Anderson and Macnaghten and he was the first to reveal Anderson's 'committal to an asylum' theory in 1895. Not only a friend, Griffiths was also part of the official governmental hierarchy (he was Inspector of Prisons at the time) and was obviously trusted and privy to much official material.

Anderson and Macnaghten would know that they could trust Griffiths and it appears that he, alone amongst public commentators on the case, was made privy to the contents of the 'Macnaghten memorandum' of 1894 which contained both Druitt (Macnaghtens preferred suspect) and Kosminski (Anderson's presumed preferred suspect) to use for his book provided the names weren't mentioned. He describes them in his 1898 book Mysteries of Police and Crime. In his summing up of these suspects, he speaks of the theory that the Ripper 'became furiously insane and committed suicide' and then states "It is a least a strong presumption that 'Jack the Ripper' died or was put under restraint after the Miller's Court affair. No sign here of Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' of 1910. Merely a presumption that he may have been 'put under restraint.'



Cue Martin stage left - "No Anderson did know but was keeping it secret from Macnaghten and Griffiths because..."

[Jeff Leahy]

Good morning Stewart

Post +186 and +187 appear to be the same news paper clip?

Was this an error. or am i missing something?

Pirate

[Chris]

While this statement is undoubtedly true...is there not also the possibility..given what is known about the condition of schizophrenia, TODAY.

That Aaron could have been going through, 'Psycotic episodes'

Perhaps he went 'in' and 'out'

And, as yet we have found NO evidence...

Sorry, I didn't really explain very clearly.

Setting the Cohen theory aside for a moment, it's usually argued that the "identification" - if the Anderson/Swanson account is based on a real attempt to identify Aaron Kozminski - took place in 1890 or early 1891. That's based on various considerations, including Swanson's implication that it took place soon before he was committed to Colney Hatch, and also the fact that the Convalescent Police Seaside Home wasn't opened until 1890 (though of course that argument depends on the CPSH being the right "Seaside Home", which I doubt).

But in that case it would be odd that Macnaghten thought that Aaron Kozminski had been committed to an asylum about March 1889, before he joined the police force. That seems to imply that if Aaron came to the police's attention and was investigated in 1890 or 1891, Macnaghten knew nothing about it at the time, or it was not significant enough for him to remember it when he came to write the memoranda in 1894 (and of course Macnaghten in his memoirs does profess a great interest in the Whitechapel Murders).

The alternative is that Aaron Kozminski was suspected earlier on - in late 1888 or early 1889, before Macnaghten joined the force - that Swanson was confused about his dates, and that whatever the "Seaside Home" was, it wasn't the police one.

[Stewart P Evans]

1903

Anderson gave a lecture to the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society on Tuesday, 3 March 1903 and an article appeared in The Yorkshire Weekly Post on Saturday, March 7, 1903. It is interesting to see that his views on crime and criminals were openly regarded as 'peculiar notions'. He was in his early sixties at this time but was described as 'gray and elderly', perhaps an indication that this was regarded as a rather good age in those days.

[Jeff Leahy]

The implications of this for the pro-Anderson lobby aren't good. Martin's theory is in tatters, and the case against Aaron Kosminski isn't looking too good either. Why doesn't Anderson respond with 'the offender has been committed to an asylum' (as he does three years later) or 'the offender is now dead' (as per Martin's theory), or even merely say that 'we are satisfied that the criminal is no longer a threat.' There is no apparent need for secrecy.

Surely it is impossible to say what Andersons reply should have been without knowing the exact wording of the question he was asked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAMIkbR9uk4&feature=related

In Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy we discover the answer to life the Universe and everything is 42. However this is fairly meaningless without knowing the question.

Surely all Anderson is doing is answering a general question. Without knowing that question's exact wording we can deduce very little from this attachment.

However, the pro-Anderson debaters will wriggle and produce all sorts of excuses such as it was too early for Anderson to reveal anything &c. &c. But this small piece is deserving of a very close look and analysis. The Anderson arguers always require an element of secrecy and duplicity to carry their theorising forward.
[ATTACH]3496[/ATTACH]

Isnt this rather having your cake and eating it. If the Pro Anderson camp, whoever they might be (its rather prosumtuous) reply, then they are 'wiggling and making excuses' when in fact they could just be pionting out that this attachment , in itself dosnt mean very much without knowing the exact wording of the question.

The simple answer is that by mid-1892 the 'caged in an asylum' theory hadn't yet fully formed.

What your doing is putting two and two together and coming up with five.

How can you possibly deduce this from the attachments that you have supplied?

If the question was..Sir Robert do you know the identity of Jack the Ripper?

you might have a point

What we dont know is exactly what Sir Robert was responding too

Yours Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Pirate Jack

I refuse to debate with 'Pirate Jack' in view of some of the nonsense he spouts and his past spats with other posters. Here, again, he is responding after priming by Paul Begg, it's that obvious.