Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

Not according to Simon, who suggests Anderson had several irons in the fire.

And I believe he was quite right to suggest such a thing since we know Anderson was in Europe while an investigation into an assassination attempt on Balfour was being executed. I only reminded of the "official line", not what was likely really going on with him.

His forte from day one in London was dealing with Fenian matters.

Best regards

[DVV]

I believe David is suggesting that the cases were not considered important enough during the actual "spree". They only became important when they started to cite specific names and references as Suspects....years after the crimes had occurred.

If thats a sound take on Davids question...I would think the unprecedented allocation of Police manpower and funding during the crimes themselves might negate that idea.

Best regards

Hi Mike,

how can you say so ?... I really don't know...
It was about Anderson himself and Anderson only...

How could I deny the "unprecedented allocation of police manpower" ?
I'm ignorant, but not that much, my friend.
You shouldn't ignore that.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hi David,

Sorry, you've lost me.

Would this explain what?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

that was just musing...
The (uncertain) point was: Anderson was the only officer to find the case "unimportant" in 1888, as you suggest.
Then he became the only officer to claim the case solved.

Did Anderson's mind work like that: "Ok, true, I wasn't in London, I know I should have been, but no matter, for the case has been solved anyway, and the ripper safely caged, etc".

In short, was he minimizing the "mistake" he made remaining out of London until after the double event ?
Perhaps... That could also explain why he insisted that London had ever been safe, ripper or not, during the automn-of-no-terror.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

I have a "pinpoint time" for you...

When Irish Eyes stopped smiling.


Just a thought old chap, just a thought....

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

More irons than you can shake a stick at.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Not according to Simon, who suggests Anderson had several irons in the fire.

Yeah, it's multitasking. People that work do that.

Roy

Roy,

The man was assigned the responsibility for these cases....he shouldnt have had "multi-tasking" of any sort going on....its the reason someone was assigned to head the investigations exclusively....the murders were supposedly his sole mandate at that time.

Best regards

[Roy Corduroy]

... it actually required a summons from the Home secretary to get him to return to London. His work in Paris must obviously have been more important.

Yeah, it's multitasking. People that work do that.

Roy

Hi Michael,

This could be part of the answer. Would you care to pinpoint the time when the Whitechapel Murders assumed their colossal importance?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Im not sure I can....but it seems to me that during the Fall while the murders were occurring the only "suspects" being suggested were men with overt mental problems and with medical knowledge. I didnt get the sense that these were viewed as much more than particularly bad PR for the various departments....and I recall a senior comment suggesting that it was only a small segment of the city that paid any real price for the crimes and the city residents never had anything to fear.

It seems the strongest opinions on the cases and suspects came years later. So....I would assume that the intervening years were when the cases became so problematic and controversial for the investigators.

Is that in line with what you were looking for?

Best regards Simon, as always

[Simon Wood]

I believe David is suggesting that the cases were not considered important enough during the actual "spree". They only became important when they started to cite specific names and references as Suspects....years after the crimes had occurred.

Hi Michael,

This could be part of the answer. Would you care to pinpoint the time when the Whitechapel Murders assumed their colossal importance?

Regards,

Simon

Hi David,

Sorry, you've lost me.

Would this explain what?

Regards,

Simon

I believe David is suggesting that the cases were not considered important enough during the actual "spree". They only became important when they started to cite specific names and references as Suspects....years after the crimes had occurred.

If thats a sound take on Davids question...I would think the unprecedented allocation of Police manpower and funding during the crimes themselves might negate that idea.

Best regards

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Sorry, you've lost me.

Would this explain what?

Regards,

Simon

Thank you Norma and Chris,

I have it in my mind [but cannot locate the reference] that Matthew Anderson's funeral took place on Sunday 14th October, which ties in with the Alan Sharp information from Evans/Rumbelow Chapter 16, footnote 14.

It's hard to believe that after something so momentous as the "double-event" Henry Matthews would wait five days before writing to "suggest" that Anderson returned to his duties. Anderson suggests he received the letter on 1st October, but either way it's doubly interesting that Anderson thought the matter so unimportant that it actually required a summons from the Home secretary to get him to return to London. His work in Paris must obviously have been more important.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Wasnt it in Paris where the Balfour assassination Plot was actually stopped sometime that Fall? Wasnt Anderson also a key man in foiling the Fenian Queen's Jubilee Bombing plot? Anderson and Monroe...if memory serves.

Maybe he had more pressing issues than running back home to oversee the investigations of some murdered homeless women in the ghetto. Women who for the most part were looked upon as a blight on society.

My best regards Simon.

[DVV]

...it's doubly interesting that Anderson thought the matter so unimportant...
Simon

Hi Simon,

then the case was unimportant in 1888, and solved beyond doubt years after.
Would this explain that...

Amitiés,
David

[Trevor Marriott]

Whilst on the topic of Anderson i have come across Dr Bonds report on 4 of the murders. i know he only attended one that was Kelly.

But Anderson sent all the papers on the other murders to him and asked him to give his opinion.

Apologies for those who have already read it but there is a need to bring it to the forefront again having regard to its content.

Strangely enough he suggests mutilations were paramount in the 4 murders. Also suggests no anataomical knowledge and does not mention anything about organ removals.

Bond examined the papers for two weeks and replied to Anderson on 10 November, 1888. Mary Jane Kelly had been killed the morning before in Dorset Street, and Bond had spent much of that day performing her autopsy.

Bond's report said:

"I beg to report that I have read the notes of the 4 Whitechapel Murders viz:
1. Buck's Row.
2. Hanbury Street.
3. Berner's Street.
4. Mitre Square.
I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street -
1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made, but arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying.
2. All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut.
3. In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.
In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed. In the Dorset Street case the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit, 2 o'clock, quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report -
Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.
4. In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out. In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.
5. In the four first cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim. In the Dorset Street case, he must have attacked from in front or from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and the part of the bed on which the woman was lying. Again, the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted on to the wall.
6. The murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands' and arms must have been covered and parts of his clothing must certainly have been smeared with blood.
7. The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner's Street one were all of the same character and shewed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation.
8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.
9. The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.
10. The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
11. Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the Police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were a prospect of reward it might overcome their scruples.
I am, Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Thos. Bond.[7]

I would suggest a lot of what Anderson later said was based on Bonds report nowadys its called "making the pieces fit"