Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Roy Corduroy]

We all breathe a sigh of relief, Martin and Stewart, that bygones be bygones and civil debate continues.

I have great respect for Philip Sugden... ...and we both agree on a preferred top suspect for the Ripper which is neither Chapman nor Tumblety.

If top suspect means one named by a police official, then with Ostrog checked off and knowing you don't lean towards Kosminki, that would be Montague Druitt. Or, Stewart, do you and Phillip have another top suspect you prefer?

Roy

[Stewart P Evans]

Actual Words

In an interview in June 1892 Anderson the Whitechapel Murders were mentioned. Anderson produced the victim photographs and stated -

"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."

I suggest any interested readers decide for themselves what these words indicate.

[Jeff Leahy]

In an interview in June 1892 Anderson the Whitechapel Murders were mentioned. Anderson produced the victim photographs and stated -

"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."

I suggest any interested readers decide for themselves what these words indicate.

As I have pointed out. It is impossible to decide what they indicate without knowing what Sir Robert Anderson was responding to.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

That's a very interesting Anderson quote, especially with him flourishing the victim photos.

Which publication carried the interview?

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Badges

As I have pointed out. It is impossible to decide what they indicate without knowing what Sir Robert Anderson was responding to.
Pirate

No, as Paul Begg has pointed out... can you send me one of your fan club badges of him, it would be a nice little addition to my collection. By this way of thinking we ignore the quote altogether as we don't know what questions were asked.

[Jeff Leahy]

No, as Paul Begg has pointed out... can you send me one of your fan club badges of him, it would be a nice little addition to my collection. By this way of thinking we ignore the quote altogether as we don't know what questions were asked.

Stewart I’m not certain why you’re being so edgy. It is after all you that seem to have set up a pro, and presumably, an anti Anderson camp.

I’m not on anyone’s side however I think it reasonable if you’re constructing something on the subject to ask ‘Exerts’ in the field, difficult questions.

Which I feel is reasonable to ask both the pro and anti Anderson camps.

The point I have raised is perfectly reasonable.

You have made a post and said look what Anderson has said, it must mean something?

I don’t think we can draw too much from Anderson’s statement without knowing exactly the context of the question he was responding too.

Too some extent it’s like the face in the window some people can see on another thread…..you see what you want to see.

Pirate

PS If you PM me your address I’ll try and sort out a badge.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pro-

Stewart I’m not certain why you’re being so edgy. It is after all you that seem to have set up a pro, and presumably, an anti Anderson camp.
I’m not on anyone’s side however I think it reasonable if you’re constructing something on the subject to ask ‘Exerts’ in the field, difficult questions.
Which I feel is reasonable to ask both the pro and anti Anderson camps.
The point I have raised is perfectly reasonable.
You have made a post and said look what Anderson has said, it must mean something?
I don’t think we can draw too much from Anderson’s statement without knowing exactly the context of the question he was responding too.
Too some extent it’s like the face in the window some people can see on another thread…..you see what you want to see.
Pirate
PS If you PM me your address I’ll try and sort out a badge.

What makes you think that I'm 'edgy'? Mention of some of the nonsense in which you have engaged in the past?

I haven't set up pro and anti anything - and I'm sure that I do not have that much influence with the readers of these threads. I have been trying to provide information that has been notably omitted in the past by both Martin Fido and Paul Begg in their published writings. True I have given my opinion along the way, but it's a free country and I'm entitled to that, others may agree or disagree as they wish. I have mentioned pro-Anderson people because that is what some are. I do not set such great store in him as do Messrs. Begg and Fido. But I hide nothing and try to give more information for others to look at. I don't like the word 'camp', one which was historically applied by Paul Begg in the case of the 'diary', and I thought 'pro-' was more apposite.

So Paul, I mean 'Pirate Jack', we are unable to take much meaning from Anderson's words in the 1892 article as we don't know exactly what question was asked. That's strange, I'm sure I've seen Paul speculate in the past. And we can at least say that Anderson did not communicate to this interviewer any knowledge of a solution and that Anderson thought they were the insane acts 'of a maniac revelling in blood.'

Anyway, don't worry about the badge, I've changed my mind.

[Robert]

There's nothing for it, Stewart : you're going to have to write a book on Anderson. If we can have Chris and Rob's research in one volume, and your Anderson material in another, then that would be a good way forward.

[Jeff Leahy]

What makes you think that I'm 'edgy'? Mention of some of the nonsense in which you have engaged in the past?

That is an opinion. However the information that I have provided is invariably factually correct

I haven't set up pro and anti anything - and I'm sure that I do not have that much influence with the readers of these threads. I have been trying to provide information that has been notably omitted in the past by both Martin Fido and Paul Begg in their published writings.

As you well know Stewart you are one of the most influential posters on casebook. And I don’t believe that I have ever not recognized or respected the contributions you have made.

True I have given my opinion along the way, but it's a free country and I'm entitled to that, others may agree or disagree as they wish.

Exactly and that is simply what I am doing.

I have mentioned pro-Anderson people because that is what some are.

I'm sorry but that again is opinion. I have read Martins posts carefully and he seems to argue the pro's and con's of Andersons character. Surely this Pro camp is a creation of your making, not theirs?

I do not set such great store in him as do Messrs. Begg and Fido. But I hide nothing and try to give more information for others to look at. I don't like the word 'camp', one which was historically applied by Paul Begg in the case of the 'diary', and I thought 'pro-' was more apposite.

The subject would be pretty dull if there weren't differences of opinion. I have very much enjoyed the contribution you and Martin have made on these threads over the last few days.

So Paul, I mean 'Pirate Jack', we are unable to take meaning much from Anderson's words in the 1892 article, as we don't know exactly what question was asked. That's strange, I'm sure I've seen Paul speculate in the past. And we can at least say that Anderson did not communicate to this interviewer any knowledge of a solution and that Anderson thought they were the insane acts 'of a maniac revelling in blood.'
Anyway, don't worry about the badge, I've changed my mind.

Again Stewart you are jumping to conclusions that do not exist. If you wish to discuss this with Paul I'm sure he will be happy to discuss it on podcast..Which as we know is his preferred media.

In the mean time I will continue in my preferred media and do my Ripperology with a camera.

Each to there own.

However all this is distracting from a very simple question about the question Anderson was responding too.

And it looks like you are in agreement that, we simply don't know.

So again it is difficult to judge whether or not Anderson new the Name Aaron Kosminski in 1992.

There, that was pretty painless

Pirate

PS Shame about the badge, i though t I might set up a little side line. i could do Stewart Evan ones too.

[Stewart P Evans]

Obviously

And it looks like you are in agreement that, we simply don't know.
So again it is difficult to judge whether or not Anderson new the Name Aaron Kosminski in 1992.

Obviously I don't know what question was asked. I did not suggest that I did, I merely asked why Anderson had said nothing whatsoever indicative or supportive of his 1910 'definitely ascertained fact' together with points that occurred to me, which others may agree or disagree with. What I can tell you is that by 1992 Anderson had been dead for many years.

[Stewart P Evans]

Omission

I'm sorry but that again is opinion. I have read Martins posts carefully and he seems to argue the pro's and con's of Andersons character. Surely this Pro camp is a creation of your making, not theirs?
Pirate

Please explain the omission of all the references that militate against Anderson being missing from the Fido/Begg books. A point that has been noted by many others - not just me!

Also, they have only responded to anything on these points when, like now, they have been unable to avoid it. Two leading authors told me years ago that they had alerted the two authors of the A-Z about points that they had omitted but still they failed to appear in later editions.

I haven't created pro- anything - I am promoting even-handedness and I do not like the word 'camp' in this context. The two of them are probably not aware that most leading authorities in the field recognise their bias. And it's not me who first used the word 'Andersonites.'

[Natalie Severn]

Stewart,
With regards to an earlier posting today of yours.I noticed that one of the press cuttings quoted Anderson talking about the legalities of ID"s-both how they were performed and what they entailed. Nowhere did he make any reference to the kind of bizarre performance that allegedly went on in the policemen"s rest home by the seaside.
A later posting of yours referred to WHEN this ID might have happened.Well if it happened "post 1888" it didnt happen to David Cohen,thats for certain,because he was already dead by December 1888 ,if I remember correctly.
So presumably it referred to Aaron Kosminski.We know that Aaron was admitted to Colney Hatch in 1891,but we dont know what he was doing,between 1888 and 1891 , ie apart from walking the dog in Cheapside in 1889 .We know that because there is a newspaper cutting of that event that records it. So it seems he was not "incarcerated" at this juncture - unless he was on some kind of "day release" programme!
However we hear from Anderson that at some point post the murders,a "low class Polish Jew" ,was taken to the Policeman"s seaside home,with difficulty, and ID'ed by a 'fellow Jew".
It might be worth us finding out whether this Jewish witness, belonged to that class of Jewish person that Anderson alleged were into "shielding their own from gentile justice"-in this case, concealing a dangerous criminal such as Jack the Ripper---but ,Anderson states, only if they were "low class Polish Jews. If our witness indeed was from this class of people as defined by Anderson, then Anderson"s "definitely ascertainable fact" about the" low class Polish Jew" he identified as "The Ripper" may simply be a matter of Anderson"s [perceptions/prejudices] of what he decided were "FACTS" about methods employed by "low class Jews" .It may all simply amount to a matter of Anderson"s " perceptions" or "prejudices" of how Anderson"s definition of "low class Polish Jews" , behaved in Whitechapel in 1888 regarding the law of the land.
Is it possible that what actually happened down at the seaside home was that Anderson"s Jewish witness "demurred" and when he refused to "play ball" and "identify" the suspect Anderson perceived that as the man not wishing him to face the noose aka gentile justice? Did Anderson simply have an "Ah Ha!"moment and confuse the man"s reluctance to express certainty about his suspect"s resemblance to whoever it was, with a refusal to let the suspect face gentile justice?

[rjpalmer]

(Referring to Tumblety) "A desperately unconvincing Ripper candidate"

Hi Martin F- I’m in a somewhat precarious position, because I am --at the same time-- both greatly impressed by your insights into serial murder and confused by what I feel is your startling lack of insight into Francis Tumblety.

Of all the police supsects, he’s the only one that actually adheres to your own definition of the serial-murderer: a man from an inadequate social background who, nonetheless, had a bizarrely exaggerated need for social prestige, and thus, egged on by his personal pathology and narcissism, rose through the ranks through crimiinal exploitation.

We’ve been hearing on a fairly regular basis from AP Wolf, Wolf Vanderlinden, Ivor Edwards, Chris George, Dan Norder, etc. etc, what a dreadful ‘candidtae’’ Tumblety supposedly is, but with few exceptions, these fellows are all advocates of the outdated ‘lustmord’ theory, which, to their way of thinking, eliminates homosexuals.

With repect, all I think this really indicates is how outdated mainstream Ripperologists are in their thinking, as if they are --almost to a man---stuck in the superficial psychology of the early 1980s. Are you familiar with the work of Dr. Athens at Seton Hall?

I'm sorry, but anyone seriously - seriously - arguing that modern serial killers are working class and blue collar, whereas Victorian serial killers are posh and middle class really does need to research their topic in more depth. Notorious Victorian murderer and mutilator Joseph Vacher was the son of an illiterate farmer. Klosowski - working class. Deeming - working class.

Thanks for the lecture, Ben, but unfortunately I’m well beyond the standard cliché interpretations that --no doubt-- you are gleaning from American-style shockumentaries about “serial murder.’ It’s not so much where the men came from---it’s where they ended up. Was Tumblety a peasant or a wealthy man? Bad Question. He was neither and both. His essence was a clash between the two selves. Vacher, Klosowski, and Deeming were all irrepressible social-climbers, who had precisely the same exaggerated social pretensions as Bundy and Berkowitz and Sutcliffe. What is different is the respective cultures from which they sprang, and that is what ultimately determines where the murderers in those cultures came from and where they ended up and how they reacted. Mudgett, Cream, Smith, etc. etc. All their biographies are basically the same. So, too, with Tumilty. He merely looks like a bad suspect because so many mainstream Ripperologists have suckled at the unproductive paps of Krafft-Ebing. That, someday soon, will likely change. But probably not on the internet.


All best wishes to you and Martin Fido.

Roger P

[Ben]

Hi Roger,

I've no doubt that a hefty number of serial killers harbour personal arrogance and a desire for recogniiton, social or otherwise. We've just heard from JTR "copycat" Derek Brown who sought notoriety from emulating his Victorian counterpart. But not everyone is capable of realizing those lofty amibitions, and serial killers are demonstrably no exception. Berkowitz and Bundy may have harboured pretensions, and they may well have been endowed of intelligence that belied their mential jobs, but the pretensions alone didn't serve to elevate their actual status in life, which, like the majority of serial killers, was relatively lowly.

Klosowski may well have spruced up his attire by the mid 1890s when he was impersonating Americans and using aliases, but at the time of the murders, there's little to suggest that he was anything more than an impoverished immigrant who couldn't speak English. The point being that having aspirations (whether they be social, financial or whatever) isn't quite the same thing fulfilling them, and in the poverty-stricken East End of 1888, there's no reason on earth for assuming that our man belonged in the latter catergory.

With reciprocal good wishes,

Ben

[jmenges]

If you wish to discuss this with Paul I'm sure he will be happy to discuss it on podcast..Which as we know is his preferred media.

Is podcasting Paul Begg's "preferred media" when he wishes to discuss something with Stewart Evans?

That's news to me.

C'mon Jeff,

JM