Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[Jeff Leahy]

come on Simon stop evading the question?

Did Anderson Write it or not?

Pirate

Ps Big gun (or the wizard of oz as he is known here) has not been and is not well. Which is why he has not posted for some time.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

Wrong question.

Frederick Cunliffe Owen interviewed SRA for the 20th March 1910 NYT article which also appeared in the Washington Post the following day.

How hard a concept is that to grasp?

Regards,

Simon

PS. Give BG my regards.

[Chris]

Frederick Cunliffe Owen interviewed SRA for the 20th March 1910 NYT article which appeared in the Washington Post the following day.

How hard a concept is that to grasp?

The problem is not that the concept is difficult to grasp, but that evidence for the assertion is lacking.

What I really don't understand is why you think that if Cunliffe-Owen had been granted an interview with Anderson, in which he had been given new and exclusive information about Jack the Ripper, he wouldn't have so much as mentioned the fact in the article - and why, on the contrary, you think he would have given his readers the impression that his knowledge of Anderson's opinions had simply been gleaned from published sources.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Call me old fashioned, but if I read a newspaper article about a person complete with their photograph [or in this instance a sketched portrait] and a good number of comments starting with the personal pronoun "I" I tend to believe that person is the subject of the article.

Why would I or anyone else think otherwise?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

"Call me old fashioned, but if I read a newspaper article about a person complete with their photograph [or in this instance a sketched portrait] and a good number of comments starting with the personal pronoun "I" I tend to believe that person is the subject of the article.

Why would I or anyone else think otherwise?"


This is the kind of post that makes me really begin to wonder...

So in other words, if I write an article talking about someone else (say Alfred Hitchcock for example), and I put a picture of Alfred Hitchcock at the top of the article, and then I use the word "I" frequently (ex. "I remember the first Hitchcock movie I ever saw," "I really like the movie Psycho." etc.), then you would assume that the article is written by Alfred Hitchcock. Is that about correct?

Makes sense to me, why not.

RH

[Chris]

Simon

But in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the assumption has to be that "I" in any article refers to the author of the article, not to some other person who is quoted in the article or whose portrait is included (and we should remember that the article was illustrated by three portraits, not just one, though admittedly Anderson's is the biggest).

My view is that the revelations in the first section, attributed to Anderson's published works, are the selling point, and that explains the title and the large picture of Anderson at the top. But the rest of the article isn't really about either Anderson or the Ripper.

And I have to ask again, if this article really arose from an exclusive interview with Anderson, and really embodied unique revelations about the Ripper, why on earth would the author not mention that fact? Why, on the contrary, would he give the reader the impression that he was merely retailing the opinions that Anderson had already published elsewhere?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

No. I would assume the article was written about Alfred Hitchcock and contained quotes from him.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

Read the article again, this time ascribing every "I" to Cunliffe Owen. It makes absolutely no sense.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Deemed Insane, by Rob House, price about $20 (To be available on Amazon.com).

Rear cover blurb—

"Many books have been written on the "unsolved" Jack the Ripper murders. But few people realize that the man who was in charge of the investigation, Sir Robert Anderson (head of the London C.I.D.) claimed the identity of the Ripper was known to the police, and that this was a "definitely ascertained fact." Anderson said that the Ripper was a Polish hairdresser named Aaron Kosminski, a schizophrenic whose actions were "controlled by an instinct" that informed his mind.

"Now for the first time, this book tells the story of Aaron Kosminski, from his upbringing in Russia's Pale of Settlement, to his immigration to London's East End, one of the most depraved criminal slums that ever existed in a modern city. "Deemed Insane" covers all the murders in minute detail, and analyzes Aaron Kosminski as a suspect using modern criminal and geographic profiling techniques. The book contains over twenty photographs, illustrations, and maps of the Ripper's crime scenes. Here for the first time is presented the only realistic and convincing solution to the notorious mystery of Jack the Ripper."

I won't go on.

No wonder you've been so touchy and defensive. No wonder you and your mate have turned cartwheels and redefined the laws of logic. You're about to flog a book to an unsuspecting public based on the shakiest premise since Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme.

Well, who'da guessed, you old dark horse?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Simon,

Yes I am writing a book on Aaron Kozminski. And in my defense, I will say that I was not planning on publicizing that link on my website at all.. I am not really happy that you googled me and posted that. The text that you posted is basically just some filler text I threw together for the proposal I sent to my agent. But whatever, you decided to post it, so be it.

I don't think it is much of a secret that I am a "Kozminski-ite" as some will term it, or that I think he is the most plausible Ripper suspect. And in my opinion, I think much of the criticism directed at Anderson does not really come out of an objective assessment of his character, but rather out of the desire to wish away both Anderson and Swanson's statements about the Ripper. And this is part of the reason I took offense both to your article (which is little more than defamation of three of the top police officials at Scotland Yard), and also to your posts describing Anderson defenders as "rabid" etc. I don't ever especially go out of my way to defend Anderson or speak as to his high character. I just don't think the character assassination is justified, and I think I would defend any person who was unjustly villified, decried as a liar, an anti-semite, a person with mental problems etc.

But apparently character assassination is your style, so draw whatever conclusions you will. Your article was complete rubbish. I don't really care to say much more about it.

RH

[Cap'n Jack]

Oh, I must say I am enjoying this.

[Chris]

Read the article again, this time ascribing every "I" to Cunliffe Owen. It makes absolutely no sense.

But as you've demonstrated, it's nonsense whoever it's ascribed to.

And I can only keep asking, if these dramatic revelations about the Ripper came from an exclusive interview with Anderson, why would the author have kept quiet about that, and instead presented them as though they came from articles that had been published elsewhere? Why would he have disguised the source of this interesting story about the visit to Broadmoor by writing it in the first person, without any quotation marks and without any indication that it came from Anderson?

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh, I must say I am enjoying this.

I did say 2010 was going to be interesting Captain.



And would like to remind everyone of Paul’s article earlier this year in Ripperologist in which he concludes:

“Sir Robert Anderson: A source Analysis

Conclusion
Overall, there appears to be nothing inherently improbable in Andersons story. There is no evidence that he was anti-Semitic-and if someone can produce some evidence then I’d be pleased to see it- and his use of the term ‘low class ‘ doesn’t convey elitism or a self-inflated sense of his own importance but was a clearly understood definition of the newly arrived East European immigrants.

Whether or not Anderson actually witnessed the eye-witness identification is uncertain, but he clearly asserted that he was speaking as ‘a man who investigated the FACTS.’ Which suggests that he was not theorizing but was talking from certain knowledge, and this, along with reference to the Polish Jew possibly dating back to 1895, would seem to eliminate the idea that he was confused and wishfully thinking in old age. And as sated, the criticism levelled at him by Mentor would certainly have acted as a corrective, making him think and recognize his error.

On top of all this there is the Swanson Marginalia, which as this stage I think there is no reasons not to allow into the historical record, and which seems to support Anderson, either as a primary source for Andersons story (which is possibly negated by his own claim to have investigated the Facts) or as based on Anderson. We have raised and considered whether Swanson could or would have accepted what even to our eyes is a strange tale without seeing some substantive evidence, albeit only to satisfy his own curiosity. We have wondered whether, as a man with overall responsibility for the investigation, the identification could have taken place without Swanson knowing anything about it. And we have indulged in a partial analysis of the marginalia and picked on one of two statements, which could indicate that he was present. All this again suggests that Anderson was not confused or mistaken or lying.

Paul Begg”

I’m afraid I will be away from my computer for a few days. So would like to take this opportunity of wishing you all a very Merry Xmas.

Yours Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Thanks Jeff,

We needed some light relief.

Oh boy, talk about wish fulfillment in action. And I'm accused of providing no facts or context.

Regards,

Simon

[perrymason]

“Sir Robert Anderson: A source Analysis

Conclusion: Overall, there appears to be nothing inherently improbable in Andersons story. There is no evidence that he was anti-Semitic-and if someone can produce some evidence then I’d be pleased to see it- and his use of the term ‘low class ‘ doesn’t convey elitism or a self-inflated sense of his own importance but was a clearly understood definition of the newly arrived East European immigrants.

Yours Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I have seen the article but how you can refer to a group of specific ethnicity using the term "of their own kind" and not be tagged anti-semitic is beyond me. The language he used clearly reveals his personal opinions of the people he describes. In less than flattering tones.

Best regards