Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[Scott Nelson]

Thanks to Simon Wood and Chris Phillips for providing this information. I was, I think, one of the first to question Simon's identification of Cunliffe-Owen with "Veteran Diplomat."

That said, some questions still remain. Did Cunliffe-Owen actually use Sir Robert Anderson as a source for his article? If so, did he personally interview Anderson? And where and when did the interview take place? London or New York? Maybe Broadmoor?

[Chris]

That said, some questions still remain. Did Cunliffe-Owen actually use Sir Robert Anderson as a source for his article? If so, did he personally interview Anderson? And where and when did the interview take place? London or New York? Maybe Broadmoor?

On those questions, I still feel that the article was based only on published accounts of Anderson's opinions.

[robhouse]

I am starting to wonder if the source of all this nonsense was none other than... George Sims. I found this in his book "Among My Autographs" starting on page 80.

http://books.google.com/books?id=TnYm4U0ysrUC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=mrs+brough+broadmoor&source=bl&ots=njeXYcCkQh&sig=MJ-RC7EKY7PYa3sHWWxF5-oqQC4&hl=en&ei=GuopS-v_ENK9lAef86GeBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=mrs%20brough%20broadmoor&f=false

Specifically, a letter from George Augustus Sala referring to an article Sims wrote in the Referee circa 1890 on his visit to Broadmoor. In the letter, Sala (born November 1828) relates a visit to Bedlam during which he spoke to Edward Oxford and apparently Mrs. Brough, who was busy "at fancy needlework". The visit was apparently in around 1860 apparently... but it seems possible that this account somehow found its way into the Anderson article... updated of course with a more first person narrative.

Anyway, Sims could be the culprit. I wouldnt be surprised if Cunliffe-Owen patched together the article from a variety of sources, (Sims, Blackwoods, etc) taking ample liberties wherever he saw fit.

Sala, incidentally would have been the right age to refer to Dr. Meyer as "a very old and dear friend." And presumably, if the writer of the article (presumably Cunliffe-Owen or Anderson or whoever Simon Wood seems to think) was a very dear old friend of Dr. Meyer, you would think he would get the name right, instead of referring to him as "Dr. Meyers."


But then again, what do I know? I am just a "rabid apologist for SRA." Of course, that may be better than Chris Phillips, who only gets referred to, derisively, as "Chris someone-or-other on Casebook."

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

The idea that it was actually George Sala who regarded Dr John Meyer as "a very old and dear friend" doesn't fly. Meyer didn't return to England until after 1856 [the year Charles Dickens sent Sala to Russia as special correspondent for Household Words] and died in 1870. And as Sala spent most of the 1860s abroad [including a spell in jail] as foreign correspondent for the Daily Telegraph the two men could only have known each other intermittently for about 12 years.

You suggest that Cunliffe Owen may have "patched together the article from a variety of sources (Sims, Blackwoods, etc.) taking ample liberties where he saw fit". George Sims' 1904 book Among My Autographs which contained the Sala letter may well have been the genesis for the Broadmoor anecdotes, but from where and from whom did he get all the information about Jack the Ripper being incarcerated post-1900 "during his Majesty's pleasure"? It certainly wasn't from Blackwoods.

SRA subscribed to Romeike and Curtice, a press cutting and information agency, and you can bet a pound to a penny that he garnered every press reference to himself. If SRA had no prior knowledge of the NYT article how do you imagine he reacted on reading about himself in terms contradictory to those he had penned in Blackwoods? Outraged? Incensed? He wasn't slow to take up the pen whenever he considered he'd been misinterpreted.

Or perhaps SRA felt flattered. After all, this wasn't the first article Cunliffe Owen had written about him in what could be described as glowing terms.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hello Simon,

I admit I do not have all the answers. However, I do think it is pretty clear that Anderson did not write the article, nor is it based on an Interview with Anderson. I do not even think that is implied in the article, so I am not sure how you jumped to that conclusion.

Of course I did not mean to imply that Sala was actually the "dear old friend" of Meyer, just that he was the right age. I think you will note in his letter that he relates "being shown over Bedlam by the resident physician" Dr. Hood. The whole letter just sounds so similar to the anecdotes about visiting Broadmoor.

I have not yet read your article (I plan to today), but I assume you may address these cases... Mrs. Brough, Edward Oxford, Boy Jones etc. I am aware that Dr. Meyer died in 1870. Edward Oxford (as far as I can figure out) was discharged from Broadmoor in 1867. I think we are supposed to assume that the visit to Broadmoor was before that time. Now I will say I am not sure if either Mrs Brough or Boy Jones were still in Broadmoor at that time. I know nothing about it.

However, I doubt either Anderson or Cunliffe-Owen would have referred to Meyer as a "dear old friend".

Moreover, if we assume that the visit to Broadmoor was either around or before 1867, we must address the following statements. "Oxford when I saw him was an old man..." Oxford in 1867 would have been around 47. Is that an old man? Boy Jones is described thus: "when I met him an elderly and respectable man..." Boy Jones in 1867 was 47. Nor do I see what business Anderson would have reading a "recently issued report to New York State Prison Commission." Maybe you address these issues in the article.

The whole idea of Anderson being the "voice" behind this article just doesn't make sense to me. Nor is it implied in the article.

How do you explain the coincidences between the NYT article and Sala's letter? It seems to me quite possible that Sims communicated the information about Broadmoor, and Anderson let it stand for the very obvious reasons, that I hope I don't have to explain.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Thank you for your post.

Before we take this any further, I would be interested to learn why you firmly believe that Anderson made no contribution to the New York Times article. Upon what is your firm belief based?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Moreover, Anderson wrote this in June 1908 (in “Criminals and Crime—a Rejoinder.” The Nineteenth Century and After.):

"the author of those murders [i.e. the Whitechapel murders] was a lunatic, and if evidence had been available to bring him to justice he would have been sent to Broadmoor.”

This seems to be a pretty clear statement that Anderson's suspect (ie. the Polish Jew) was NOT committed to Broadmoor. Are you suggesting that Anderson contradicted this just two years later...?

Rob H

[robhouse]

Simon,

"Before we take this further" let me reiterate that I still have not read your article. So maybe I will wait a bit before responding.

However, as I understand the gist of it... your article essentially discredits Anderson, making him out to look like a liar or a fool... based on YOUR assumption that he either wrote or was directly quoted as the source behind the NYT article. I think the burden on proof lies with you to prove that Anderson wrote or was "the voice" of the article, (or contributed to the article in some way) since I do not think any other Ripperologist has ever come to this conclusion. Nor do I see why they would. I have read the article and I didnt come to that conclusion. Do you have any proof?... aside from the fact that his picture is displayed on the page?

As Chris Phillips aptly points out, Anderson is not quoted, and the author specifically cites the source of his information (at the beginning of the article) as coming from "an article over his signature in one of the leading London reviews for the current month, and supplemented by a letter from him printed in the London Times." I am not sure what this refers to, but it is clearly not implied that the Veteran Diplomat interviewed Anderson at all.

So I should ask you... where did you get the idea? You are the one who wrote the Rip article, not I.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

I'll wait to respond until you've paid me the courtesy of reading my article.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hello Simon,

OK, I have read the article. I think the whole thing is patent nonsense.

Now I suppose we might start by you explaining where you got the idea that Anderson either penned, or contributed to the New York Times article in any way. Because from what I can tell from your article, you seem to have simply assumed this to to be the case... in other words, I think you have made a simple mistake.

There is absolutely nothing in the article which suggests Anderson had anything to do with it.... and several (some of which you point out as examples of Anderson either lying or being otherwise unreliable) clearly suggest that he didn't have anything to do with it.

Also, I think that the fact that, as you yourself admit, "Cunliffe-Owen was familiar with the process of incarcerating the insane at the sovereign’s pleasure," supports the theory that C-O authored the entire article... as indeed anyone would naturally assume.

So the burden of proof is on you here. I think it a non-starter.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

"I think the whole thing is patent nonsense", "I think you have made a simple mistake" and "I think it a non-starter" is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-la-la.

Surely you can come up with something better than that.

Who said—

"The jury can render, as I have just explained, a verdict of guilty . . ."

" . . . I can remember during my several stays at Broadmoor . . ."

"Oxford, when I saw him, was an old man . . ."

" . . . when I met him an elderly and respectable looking man . . .

" . . . I remember her as a kindly looking woman of 82 . . ."

"I can well recall seeing and chatting with this man . . ."

" . . . nor could I find in him the slightest trace of insanity . . ."

" . . . let me explain what would have been the fate of Harry Thaw . . ."

Explain to everyone exactly why SRA had nothing to do with the NYT article.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Simon,

Here is my basic critique of your article. I will start with a few basic errors.

You refer to Aaron Kozminski's sisters "Betsy and Matilda". In fact, Aaron had only one sister living in London at the time. Betsy was Aaron's sister-in-law and probably his second cousin.

You refer to Aaron's brother-in-law "Woolfe Abrahams." In fact Woolf Abrahams was Aaron's brother, born Wolek Kozminski, and referred to on Aaron's Colney Hatch Asylum admission record as "Wolf Kozminski."

You refer to Aaron being an imbecile: (e.g. "a defenceless imbecile" and "could the imbecilic Aaron Kosminski who ate food from the gutter really have been the person who..." etc.)

--- I have addressed this issue before. Aaron was clearly not an "imbecile." The term imbecile was a strictly defined medical and legal term according to the Asylums Act of 1845. In essence an imbecile was one of three classifications of "insane person" roughly menaing a person with mental retardation. Specifically the term was defined as a person who was non compos mentis (not of sound mind) from birth, and incurable. The other two classifications were "lunatic" and "person of unsound mind." According to Aaron's insanity certification and his Colney Hatch asylum record he was a "person of unsound mind." This was roughly equal in meaning to "lunatic." Aaron's 1901 census entry specifically lists him as a lunatic, and his Leavesden record later updated his diagnosis to secondary dementia. The idea of Aaron's being an imbecile (as noted in Sugden, Fido, etc. ad infinitum) was essentially based on the assumption that all inmates at Leavesden were in fact Imbeciles. This assumption is incorrect.

You state a number of things in your article that are completely unfounded in reality. A few examples:

1. "It is safe to conclude that Macnaghten's 'certain facts, pointing to this conclusion' were no more and no less than the Farquharson story, and that until its appearance the police had not suspected Montague John Druitt of being Jack the Ripper." -- there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this is true.

2. "From out of left field Macnaghten tossed in an alternative ending to the mystery which made no sense whatsoever—unless he was talking about Kosminski." - This is obviously a reference to Aaron Kozminski, and simply acknowledges the fact that Macnaghten was apparently undecided as to which of the two theories was best.

3. "it certainly wasn't in his police record, apparently limited to his being fined ten shillings..." -- in fact, we do not know what was in Aaron Kozminski's police record. I think it is fair to assume there was one. If you have seen it, I would be very interested to hear what it says.

4. "his extant workhose and asylum case notes, which stretch intermittantly across a 28 year institutional period." -- This is perhaps a bit of an understatement. We know of Aaron’s mental condition at Leavesden for just 8 and a half years out of the total of 28 years he was in the asylum (ie. less than 30% of the total period).

5. "it was a diversionary tactic to prevent curious minds from probing the true facts of the Whitechapel murders. And somehow it worked... nothing politically untoward came of the Cutbush story. The Sun story fizzled out." -- You are suggesting that somehow the Macnaghten memorandum was responsible for the fact that the story fizzled out. I think it had nothing to do with it, especially seeing how it was never released.

6. You then rehash the whole theory that Anderson's statements about the Polish Jew "evolved" over time. I am well aware that this has been proposed by Stewart Evans, but with all due respect, I do not buy the argument.

7. You claim that Anderson's post-1894 "maniac committed to an asylum" theory took its lead from the Memorandum--- This is utter nonsense, and is not supported by anything.

8. "Greenburg was right. Anderson's 'wicked assertion' was 'without the shadow of evidence'; there was 'absolutely no proof' that a Jew was responsible for the Jack the Ripper Murders." -- Again, while Anderson admits that there was not sufficient evidence to convict, we simply do not know what the Police knew about Aaron Kozminski. And despite Greenburg's criticism, and your claim that "in reply to Greenburg Anderson played toady," Anderson in no way backed down from his assertion that the Polish Jew was guilty. I do not think "playing toady" is a fair assessment of the situation. Anderson was simply writing a letter of apology for "aspersions" that he felt may have been cast of the Jewish community as a whole.

9. You claim that the updated version in Anderson's book "Compounded the offense by announcing the Ripper was a Polish Jew..." I think exactly the opposite was the case. Anderson added "Polish" to clarify that the suspect was an immigrant Jew, presumably so as not to offend the long-established Anglo-Jewish community, who likewise perceived the immigrant East European Jews with something bordering on contempt. As noted by William Fishman, London’s established Jewish population regarded the immigrants as a lower caste of radical Jews, “fit only to receive alms,” and feared “social retrogression” through association with them. The “marked increase in alien Jews was a source of fear and embarrassment to Anglo-Jewry.” As an editorial in the Jewish Chronicle put it, “Our fair fame is bound up with theirs; the outside world is not capable of making minute discrimination between Jew and Jew, and forms its opinion of Jews in general as much, if not more, from them than from the Anglicized portion of the Community.” Thus, Anderson's updated version relegated the suspect to the "lower caste of Jews" in the East End. Anderson probably thought this would placate Greenburg somewhat.

7. Anderson's accusation was completely without foundation and little more than a pretext for indulging in some blatant anti-Semitism. --- this statement is absolutely absurd.

8. As previously mentioned, your attribution of the New York Times article to Anderson is (in my opinion) clearly wrong. You make several statements related to this which I don't see any point to mention ("Anderson cleverly fudged the issue.." "On the face of things all this appears to be classic Anderson slipperiness." "I can remember," said Anderson, "during my several stays at Broadmoor..." etc)

9. "‘Sir Robert’s revelations,’ wrote Cunliffe-Owen, ‘in an article over his signature in one of the leading London reviews for the current month, and supplemented by a letter from him printed in The London Times, effectively disposes . . . [of many popular Ripper myths]’ [my italics]. No letter from Anderson was published in The Times between 1 January and 31 March 1910, so this was not something Cunliffe-Owen could have heard about from a third party or read first-hand. The source of the story must have been Anderson himself."

-- the much simpler explanation, is that Cunliffe-Owen simply confused the non-existent Times letter with Anderson's letter to the Globe on March 7, 1910, in response to Mentor. In any case, why would C-O claim the information came from a letter in the Times, if he had indeed got the information from Anderson directly?

10. You attribute the "Broadmoor reminiscences" (Boy Jones, Mrs Brough, etc) to Anderson, then berate him for the apparent errors in such stories (presumably more evidence of Anderson's lying, bragging, etc) --- The fact is that is much more likely that Cunliffe-Owen simply "borrowed" these stories from the Sala letter printed in Sims' 1903 book of letters, and updated them with a "first person" perspective. Taking such liberties wouldnt be a problem since a) Cunliffe-Owen was writing anonymously, and b) He clearly was not implying that these were Anderson's reminiscences anyway, but were those of the unnamed author.

11. "Yet, in the light of his cavalier attitude to the truth displayed in Blackwood’s and the New York Times, his differing accounts of the identification and incarceration of Jack the Ripper must be summarily dismissed as falsehoods—unless, of course, either can be substantiated by means other than blind faith in Anderson’s moral and spiritual rectitude and professional integrity."

--- a typical sentence, completely unfounded, because a) the NYT article is certainly not written by Anderson nor based on any interview with him, and b) there is only one demonstrable error in what Anderson wrote regarding Kozminski in Blackwoods (which was corrected in the book version).... and it is really the Kozminski part of Anderson's Blackwood's revelations that is at issue here. I do not really care to get into the other standard topics of Anderson bashing that are usually cited regarding his memoirs... although you bring up a fair crop of them in your article.

12. In the end, with much fanfare but little rationale, you decide to throw out three of most important pieces of documentation related to the case. As you say, "They’re not worth the paper they’re written on." The Macnaghten memorandum, you declare (with no real evidence) is worthless. The Swanson marginalia is forged. Anderson's statements are rubbish. And, as a bonus, the identification of Kozminski by a witness never happened at all.

I am sorry, but with all due respect, I don't buy any of it.

RH

[perrymason]

I found this line in the article quite interesting...."...acting in the name of the sovereign, and not by means of any judicial process".

Stuck someone away indefinitely against their will without having any formal charges laid against them, nor any trial of the evidence found to suggest their guilt to the authorities,.... based on the inclinations or desires of the "sovereign". Does the term political prisoner ring a bell with anyone?

In a typical Democratic scenario, that would translate to Matters of the State, Or National Security, on in the US perhaps Homeland Security I would suppose.....to be able to circumvent the legal system altogether and indefinitely incarcerate someone without formal charges. A State of War might be another case where the political sensibilities are making those kinds of determinations and enforcing those kinds of punishments, not the legal or justice system.

That Anderson was also quite something as a Fenian buster, wasnt he?

Best regards all.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Check your facts very carefully, then get back to me.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

What facts are you talking about? I have cited numerous examples in my post.

Rob H