Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[perrymason]

One fact goes well beyond any petty differences in opinions, and it is that the statements in print made by these men that are being discussed do not constitute any single logical train of thought or premise when looked at as "Departmental Positions".

Clearly, the Memorandum offers us three suspects that have nothing as a common factor in their lives and without any shred of connective evidence linking them to ANY crimes beyond theft. A socially acceptable and adept comfortably wealthy Barrister who commits suicide due to a depressed state after losing his job, and fears his maternal gene carries the same insanity inherent in the source....a compulsive thief who we now know was imprisoned during the Ripper crimes, and a dirt poor Polish Jew who was overtly and obviously mentally challenged.

What evidence can be seriously considered in any one of those men....that one's family suggested to someone in Macnaghtens camp they thought their barrister relative was perhaps the Ripper....is it that Anderson believed the killer to be a local Polish Jew who was insane.....because Ostrog wasnt checking in regularly with the local police means he was out killing in the East End?

Please.

What we have with all these opinions is a very clear picture of how little they did know about the Whitechapel murderer let alone Jack the Ripper, who killed at the same time,....and the grounds for suspicion that the disparate and contradictory public pronouncements were intentional "mis" or "dis" information.

Best regards all

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

What makes this whole topic sometimes ridiculous is that, despite examples I have provided in two articles about SRA's tentative grasp on the truth, there remains an inability on the part of the pro-Anderson lobby to argue the subject or provide counter-evidence to show that truth dripped like pearls from his lips. The best so far mustered is that Martin Fido has "formed the opinion that on the subject of Jack the Ripper SRA would NOT have lied."

Rob House has been unable to substantiate any of his criticisms of my article, falling back in the main on a twisted logic which suggests to him that an almost full page NYT Sunday magazine article featuring SRA actually had nothing to do with him, but was cobbled together out of thin air by a journalist. Rob wrote, "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."

Now who's fantasizing, Rob? Last month you'd never even heard of Frederick Cunliffe Owen, so what "fact" is that? Don't you think that SRA might have had a lot to say about someone playing fast and loose with his reputation?

This is my favourite of your criticisms of my article [from Post #27]—

I first quoted Macnaghten—‘A much more rational theory is that the murderer’s brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller’s Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.’

I then wrote, "From out of left field Macnaghten tossed in an alternative ending to the [Druitt] mystery which made no sense whatsoever—unless he was talking about Kosminski."

To which you responded, "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."

Best for what, Rob? It's comforting to know that the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police had the luxury of a choice in such an important matter.

It has been suggested that I have been smug. This is not so, for I have no ego in the matter. If any of the pro-Anderson camp—possibly one of the big guns—cares to step up and demonstrate exactly where I have gone wrong I will gladly pack up my tent and retreat.

The Good Michael's suggestion that I provide "corroborated evidence and documentation" of SRA being involved in some sort of cover-up beggars belief. Such things are not committed to paper except by the terminally stupid. Ditto SRA's anti-Semitism, although his alien criminal utterances are well worth reading.

Oh, and by the way, Rob, before I forget. You berated me with great glee on a detail about Kosminski's relatives. My suggestion is that you take up the matter with one of the pro-Anderson big guns whose book I used to double-check my facts.

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

Thank you, Michael - Perry Mason - for saying what I was just about to say.
It is plainly ludricous to take Macnaghten's statements concerning the Whitechapel Murders seriously in any form or manner whatsoever; and I think this to be true of Anderson's statements in this regard... and for that matter Littlechild's opinions on the matter.
I'm not in any camp on this particular matter, but I do know the difference between lamb and turkey.

[Jeff Leahy]

and a dirt poor Polish Jew who was overtly and obviously mentally challenged.

Really? Surely Rob’s research has demonstrated that Aaron came from a comparatively wealthy Polish Jewish family who ran a relatively successful business? And far from being mentally challenged was almost certainly suffering schizophrenia.

This meant that he would have had periods of comparatively high mental functioning, perhaps even have been comparatively clever.

Pirate

PS Just to quote John Bennett here I gather that most of the 'big guns' have been; “sitting on the fence so long that they have gotten piles”

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

You make an excellent point.

The only question we should be addressing is whether Macnaghten and Anderson lied about the identity of the Ripper because the Metropolitan Police knew nothing but wanted to look vaguely competent, or whether they lied because they were concealing something.

But either way the MM and its spin-offs are still disinformation.

A very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

The MM importance is the name KOSMINSKI which is clearly written, bye SWANSON, in private notes, in the margin of Anderson’s book…the lighter side of my official life.

Clearly Dr Davis exact position requires clarification, but it must seem apparent to anyone with half a brain that the Marginalia is GENUINE.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

But not written by SRA.

I have a complete brain and think the Swanson Marginalia is phonier than a twenty quid Rolex.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Despite the fact that it has been examined by two home Office experts?

Both of whom have verified Martin Fido’s original assessment?

Your looking like a member of the flat earth society…besides, I intend to put this beyond argument as soon as possible in the new year..its the biggest red herring in modern Ripperology and we have already wasted to much time on it.

It was written by Swanson

Pirate

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

You make an excellent point.

The only question we should be addressing is whether Macnaghten and Anderson lied about the identity of the Ripper because the Metropolitan Police knew nothing but wanted to look vaguely competent, or whether they lied because they were concealing something.

But either way the MM and its spin-offs are still disinformation.

A very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

Thank you my friend, for both the sentiments and the support. And to you also AP.

My best regards

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

A handwriting expert also concluded that Tumblety wrote the "From Hell" letter.

My earth is fat, round and fecund. You and your chums are the ones clutching at outmoded straws.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Isnt that a little bit like saying all doctors are like Harold Shipman?

What we have are two experts Davis and Totty confirming that it was probably written by Swanson.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2380&page=9

Fot those interested I will post a link to an interesting discussion and post made by he I cant mention, Rob and SPE. Otherwise we just go in more circles.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

The word "probably" is hardly definitive.

But, as you say, let's not go around in circles.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Depends on whether we are in the world of Newton or Quantum Mechanics?

Though I must say that I have missed you buggers and its great to be back on Casebook, but I must away back to home, there is work to be done...

Byee xx

[robhouse]

Simon,

You said: "Rob House has been unable to substantiate any of his criticisms of my article."

First of all, you never responded to any of my criticisms, except to suggest (essentially) that I "go back and do some research." If you had responded, then perhaps I might have felt compelled to back up my claims, or argue the point or whatever. That is what debate entails. I am sure I could go through your article and provide more detailed critiques, but I am beginning to realize that it would be pointless to do so. Secondly, I think if you write an article claiming the sorts of rather outlandish claims such as you have done, it is your responsibility, not mine, to substantiate such claims.


You said: "To which you responded, "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.""

"Best for what, Rob? It's comforting to know that the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police had the luxury of a choice in such an important matter."

My interpretation is simply that Macnaghten preferred Druitt as a suspect (for whatever reason). However, I assume that he was not very convinced one way or the other as to the identity of the Ripper, and think he probably considered both Druitt and Kozminski as possibile suspects. Although, as he himself said, "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." It is not unusual for different police officers working the same case to have different theories or different preferred suspects, nor is it unusual for a police official to consider more than one suspect as "possibilities." What is so difficult to understand about that?


You said: "Now who's fantasizing, Rob? Last month you'd never even heard of Frederick Cunliffe Owen, so what "fact" is that? Don't you think that SRA might have had a lot to say about someone playing fast and loose with his reputation?"

I am more than happy to give you credit for discovering Cunliffe-Owen as the author of the NYT article. I admit I never heard of Cunliffe-Owen before this week. However I don't see what that has to do with my critique, which is, simply, that you seem to have attributed the entire article to Anderson (either as author, or interviewee, or contributor.) I think this claim is completely wrong, and you still have not responded on that point. I think the article was clearly bungled one way or the other...

As to your question, "Don't you think that SRA might have had a lot to say about someone playing fast and loose with his reputation?" I really have no idea. Maybe he would, maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if Anderson didn't bother to respond because he didn't want to get involved in any type of discourse that would reveal more about the suspect than he cared to disclose. What's he going to do? Write a letter to the Times and say "No he wasn't committed to Broadmoor. He was committed to Colney Hatch." ??


You said: "Oh, and by the way, Rob, before I forget. You berated me with great glee on a detail about Kosminski's relatives. My suggestion is that you take up the matter with one of the pro-Anderson big guns whose book I used to double-check my facts."

I think if you ask the "big guns," they will be happy to admit that I am right, so maybe you should go and do your research.

I admit I am pretty sick of this whole discussion. I don't really see any point in continuing it.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Without wanting to beat the subject to death, I have laid out my argument for the NYT article being attributable to SRA. In this and another of my articles, I have also cited other examples of SRA being economical with the truth. You, on the other hand, "think this claim is completely wrong . . ." without being able to offer one convincing reason why this is the case.

Be assured that I will be here if the big guns descend from Mount Olympus and come to your aid, but I fear that they, like you, will have nothing in their arsenals except bluster and blind faith.

May you and yours have a safe and warm Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon