Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[jason_c]

Jason:

Would Lawende have been considered low class or from the lower class even in 1888 ?

I dont know much about his class. However, Anderson I believe did say that Kosminski's family had a low class (but educated) Polish Jewish background.

Kosminskis family was dragging itself up towards upper working class or lower middle class status. Educated I take as meaning upwardly mobile in this case. Lawende could be similarly upwardly mobile.

[jason_c]

But the point is that Anderson was clearly claiming that he had deduced from general considerations - namely, that men living alone had been eliminated, so that the murderer must have been protected by the people he was living with - that the killer was a "low class Jew", and that (later on) the result proved that his diagnosis was correct.

So, according to his claim, he singled out "low class Jews" before he knew about Kozminski, or the alleged identification.

He singled out low class Jewish after a house to house investigation. So he had some reason to believe his views. It didnt just come up out of thin air.

We dont know exactly what happened during the house to house investigation. The police may have felt less than happy with the co-operation of theses local Jews. We simply dont know.

Anyway, writing many years after the event i wouldnt be too hung-up about the exact wording. Its just as likely he had a hunch the killer would be found in this local Jewish population, rather than a definate unalterable theory of his.

Kosminski's family and Lawende may have turned these views of his into facts.

[Natalie Severn]

But the point is that Anderson was clearly claiming that he had deduced from general considerations - namely, that men living alone had been eliminated, so that the murderer must have been protected by the people he was living with - that the killer was a "low class Jew", and that (later on) the result proved that his diagnosis was correct.

So, according to his claim, he singled out "low class Jews" before he knew about Kozminski, or the alleged identification.

Absolutely correct Chris----and actually this is of immense significance here.Major Smith dwells for some time on refuting Anderson"s claims about "where the ripper lived" and claimed nobody had ever known any such thing and still didnt twenty years later.And he should have known as Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police as well as being the ONLY Police Chief prior to the murder of Mary Kelly ,who was actually at the scene of the crime within a few hours in the case of the City murder of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square.Smith also wrote this in his autobiography of 1910.

I have noticed however that it has become very useful for certain people to dismiss Major Smith as "inaccurate" and given to "embroidering the facts" .I have noticed too that such people are mostly those who like to convince us that Robert Anderson was somehow "accurate" in what he said about the Ripper and the "low class Jews" of Whitechapel circa 1888.
It amuses me ,it really does,because it was actually Sir Robert Anderson"s "embroidery of the facts" in his autobiography ,that took the breath away from several Members of Parliament and drew his contemporaries such as Sir Winston Churchill to refer to him as writing "Fairy Tales" and to begin to compare him to his namesake,Hans Christian Anderson --proclaiming this in the House of Commons..... [ Hans Christian Anderson ofcourse actually wrote "Fairy Tales" for a living].
Heavens-they all made mistakes and "embroidered the facts" somewhat in their autobiographies....Macnaghten, Anderson, Dew, Smith all guilty of "embellishment"of the facts--- if not downright "invention" from time to time.
But it is so much more helpful to single out Major Smith as if he were alone-----
But ofcourse I should know better .
Major Smith committed the cardinal sin of claiming Anderson had made untrue and thoroughly "reckless assertions" about "low class Jews"!

So lets demonise him boys!

Best Wishes for the New Year Chris,

Norma

[Chris]

He singled out low class Jewish after a house to house investigation. So he had some reason to believe his views. It didnt just come up out of thin air.

I really don't think there's any mystery about Anderson's reasoning, because he spells it out for us.

He says:
(1) The killer was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders.
(2) If he was not living alone he must have been protected by his people (i.e. those he was living with).
(3) During the house-to-house search the police investigated all those who could come and go and get rid of blood-stains in secret. (That is, he believed they had eliminated all those who were living alone in the immediate vicinity of the murder scenes.)
(4) They concluded that he and his people were "low-class Jews", because low-class Jews would not give up one of their own to Gentile justice.

I think the reasoning is quite clear. Anderson believed it was obvious that the killer lived in the immediate vicinity of the murder scenes, and that he either lived alone or was being protected by those he lived with. Furthermore he believed that the house-to-house search had elminated those who lived alone in the immediate vicinity, so that the killer must have been protected by those he lived with. And in Anderson's mind, the only people who would have protected the killer were "low-class Jews".

[DVV]

Furthermore he believed that the house-to-house search had elminated those who lived alone in the immediate vicinity, so that the killer must have been protected by those he lived with.

Hi Chris,

that's it, and who, except Anderson, could be confident that "the house-to-house search had eliminated those who lived alone" ?
And who can be sure that the Ripper wasn't a dosser ?

It's clear that his suspicions (on Jews) are a preconceived idea he tries to sell as a conclusion.

Amitiés,
David

[robhouse]

To me it has always been unclear what exactly Anderson meant in this paragraph (and the one following)... part of it clearly describes the police's "theory" or profile... that the Ripper was a sexual maniac, either living alone or with people who refused to give him up. Another part of it clearly describes "the result", presumably referring to the actual suspect who, according to Anderson, was the Ripper. This result proved the theory right. But Anderson's wording is rather "loose". For example, he claims that the theory was "discovered"... this is not a word I would have chosen here. Moreover it is unclear to me whether "the conclusion we came to" [after the house to house search] refers to a conclusion based on reasoning (or theory), or a conclusion based on some discovered facts.

Anderson later wrote: "We have in London a stratum of the population uninfluenced by religious or even social restraints. And in this stratum Jews are to be found as well as Gentiles. And if I were to describe the condition of the maniac who committed these murders, and the course of loathsome immorality which reduced him to that condition, it would be manifest that in his case every question of nationality and creed is lost in a ghastly study of human nature sunk to the lowest depth of degradation."

Anderson seems to be referring to the "criminal" stratum of the population and implying that the maniac's people were among this stratum of the Jewish population. It is clear that Anderson is saying that there was a stratum of Jews who refused to cooperate with the police, but I assume he would agree that the same was true for a certain stratum of the gentile population.

RH

[Howard Brown]

"We have in London a stratum of the population uninfluenced by religious or even social restraints. And in this stratum Jews are to be found as well as Gentiles.." -----R.House quoting SRA.

So lets not "demonize" him but rather take into consideration this remark.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

"We have in London a stratum of the population uninfluenced by religious or even social restraints. And in this stratum Jews are to be found as well as Gentiles . . ."

This was the slippery Anderson indulging in a spot of damage limitation after having been quite rightly roasted by Leopold Greenberg ["Mentor"].

Anderson also had the brass neck to write, "I am happy in reckoning members of the Jewish community in London among my personal friends", which is not only unconvincing when it comes to disclaiming bias but also a stereotypical response by one who is biased.

Regards,

Simon

[Howard Brown]

Biased

Simon:

With all due and sincere respect to you, my friend... the only bias I see in regard to the issue of Anderson and his remarks... is the bias that those who are anti-police and anti-Kosminski-as-Ripper and overly suspicious of the failure on the part of the police to come to an agreement on who exactly Jack The Ripper was... have towards the man for a gaffe that Anderson didn't dodge, but confronted and explained . Its remarkable that Anderson is being "demonized" for misstating a point that everyone who ever traipsed these message boards has done once in their own lives on something if not on an issue like this, but something similar...but without the vitriol tossed in their direction (as in Anderson's direction) on a non stop, mantra like,basis.

Later dude.

[robhouse]

I agree Howard. The mantra-like bias is fairly plain in statements like this:

"So lets demonise him boys!"

RH

[Howard Brown]

Thank you, Rob.

One other minor point I'd like to share is that we all ought to be on the side of accuracy when it comes to Anderson and those remarks. Issues of the police being anti-Semitic in their daily routine have been raised on JTR Forums in much the same way by the usual suspects.

I have the same perceptions that those who rail against Anderson do, and I will mention Simon as being in that cadre since he stated his position on SRA just now... in other areas that SRA did not bother to counter or correct that get lost in the shuffle because of the infusion of the anti-Semitic aspersions in almost every conversation which surfaces here or elsewhere on SRA.

Again,thanks Rob. It might be time for another 5Q with RH, if you can swing the time.

How

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

Anderson was so contrite that his accusation was repeated later in the year when The Lighter Side of My Official Life appeared as a book.

Sorry, I honestly don't understand the stubbornness of the pro-Anderson/Kosminski was the Ripper lobby when the discernible facts of the matter are so stacked against them.

Regards,

Your Limey Dude

Hi Rob,

Take the time to read Norma's post again.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Oooh,we are in a paddy boys! Lighten up!

[Simon Wood]

I am in a state of equanimity.

[Howard Brown]

Nats:

No, we're all in the same boat..at least I think so...but at different ends of the vessel with different views of the ocean.

You should know and so should Simon that my position is in no way my being disrespectful to you as researchers or people...or friends.