Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[Stephen Thomas]

What do you mean by a "curate's egg"?

Hi Rob

It's a common Brit phrase meaning 'good in parts'

I'm sure it'll be on Google.

[Stephen Thomas]

We've shifted from AP's chicken to Stephen's egg.
Now something must come out.

Stay tuned for oeuf shattering revelations David.

My best wishes to you for the New Year

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

And a very Happy New Year to you all!

Having ploughed my way (introduces another farming analogy) through this thread, we have had the "Cart before the Horse", "Two bob each way bet" from Magnaghten, including his third horse, a non runner, (well, it started the race but didn't run...), and the chicken before the egg theory. We have had dry turds left in the stable, after the nagical horse has disappeared through the side wall, having discovered the door was bolted. (We do not know who nicked the key, or if it was a latch-key lock).
And finally, scrambled egg revelations we need to turn the radio on for. Umm, they shoot horses, don't they?

Hello, good evening, this is the news.

Today in Ripperology, analogies were the recipe of the day. Jimmy Young, on radio of course, would have been proud to present this. (This...is what, you dooooo)

To come back from a seemingly semblance of disorder, may I, as a lay man, as opposed to the egg that was laid, make a few comments on this clearly embattled situation? Thank you.

First of all..

AP wrote the following..

So I think Anderson .....was being racist by using one of the many myths about the Jews that had followed them over the sea from Eastern Europe..

That comment is probably near to the crux of the argument about Anderson's views on Jews. Yes, it is without question, that there were anti-semitic tendencies, and more so, within society. In the East End, in Whitechapel, tension was sky high. And anarchists, Fenians and the like were being watched left right and centre. The influx of the European Jewish population into Whitechapel had inflamed the general situation. And as to whether policemen of ANY rank were racist, either in their actions or in their comments, we know that it happened, and still does. So if Anderson's comments are today seen as racist, inflamatory (as Norma said when quoting a Jewish leader did THEN), then common sense must prevail. Anderson quoted one of the many myths about Jews, and that, in all it's forms, is underlyingly racist in the context in which it was said.


Simon wrote..

If we are truly concerned about such matters, then Aaron Kosminski deserves better from us than the current lynch mob mentality which seems intent on protecting the reputations of two top cops at the exorbitant expense of condemning an innocent man to eternal damnation.

Better to spend our time asking why Macnaghten originally chose to put Kosminski in the frame for the Whitechapel murders, why it took seven years for Anderson to first advance his nameless homicidal maniac committed to an asylum theory, and why someone so desperately wanted Macnaghten and Anderson to be seen walking on water that they were willing to tinker with Swanson's marginalia.

Here, the crux is Kosminski, and his name.
The job of compiling accusational "evidence", and I use that term carefully, that COULD destroy ANY historical view of our methodology in how we present a suspect, may cause historians to look back on OUR efforts with dismay if Kosminski does turn out to be totally innocent of being the Whitechapel murderer. We have to be very careful not to let the reputation of this man be in any way more tarnished than it historically should be. We only have to look at Sir William Gull's reputation after his inclusion as a suspect. Mud sticks.

Simon's next point, about the reputations of two top policemen, is crucial as well. There isn't a shadow of doubt that this question would NEVER have arisen, if they had been seen to have been squeaky clean in their utterances and writings. However, Anderson, who I have previously mentioned, IS severely doubted for many such comments and utterances, let alone his actions. Macnaghten's mentioning and naming of Druitt, based on the flimsiest of provable evidence, if any at all, coming from such a high ranking official, casts SERIOUS doubts over his command of the situation. If he is willing to use this man and his name in this manner, causing us, today, to refer to Druitt as being used as a scapegoat, then, Macnagghten's reputation as a police officer SHOULD be severely criticised. And in my honest, lay man's opinion, rightly so.

Rob wrote..

My motivation to write the book was simply to get the information about Kozminski out to the public, in a readable form.

That attitude Rob, is to be applauded. If that indeed is your primary motivation (and it is the only one you mentioned, so I can safely presume it is the one which you give greatest importance to) then it is to give us all historical information, hopefully liberally sprinkled with facts hitherto unknown in general to us all. I look forward to reading the aforementioned book. And even though I reason that Anderson and his statements are, in my opinion, a source of serious concern, as written about above, the historical evidence ABOUT Kosminski is a source of anticipation.

Lynn wrote..

"Indeed some would question the term ‘SCHIZOPHRENIA’ altogether, which means its likely that in a few years people will look back and laugh as I am doing to those who raised theories twenty years ago."

Well, R D Laing and Thomas Szasz are 2 such. I daresay it is to them you refer.

I think such skepticism is well founded--the diagnosis is indeed a slippery one.

Do you see a distinction to be made between schizophrenia (again, if it exists) and paranoid schizophrenia? Do you see a possible connection between Kosminski and the latter?

Lynn is correct imho...To use this terminology, even with a medical education within the field of psychology or psychoanalogy, is indeed fraught with problems relating to distinguishing the existance of the one variety, and the difference between the two forms.

Norma wrote...

As far as I am concerned Pirate,the family behaved in an utterly conventional manner with regards to taking care of their dead brother Aaron"s funeral arrangements.Aaron was buried according to Jewish tradition,by a Jewish funeral parlour in Aldgate.
So Aaron,with his belief in a Universal Instinct and his obedience to his voices as well as his obstinate refusal to work,eat conventional meals or keep himself clean, must have caused a great deal of tension within his particular family.Small wonder it all ended up in tears and him going for his sister with a knife.Everybody was probably close to breaking point by the time they got Aaron sectioned.

Yes, totally agree. This really IS getting down to brass tacks. The family environment for the ENTIRE family would have been severely put on edge with these very "extreme", non traditional views. Over time, tensions most certainly would rise. Very possibly to boiling point, as Norma points out. And THAT, in itself, is a crucial point here. People react according to emotional standpoints. Built up over time, they CAN disrupt all rational behaviour. On both sides of the fence.

Jeff wrote...

Schizophrenia would cause a large amount of strain and friction in any family house hold reguardless of religeon.

Indeed it would Jeff. Again, built up over time, and to what degree it had attained. However, I believe Norma's reasoning about the family tension to be the base of the problem, which could very well have been made a darn site worse by mental imbalance.

Trevor wrote...

The answer is quite simple. None of them did know the identity of the killer. In later years they volunteered nothing more than uncorrobrated theories or personal opinions. You only have to look at the different suspects they suggested. To date no one has been able to come up with any direct evidence to prove any of their theories or opinions

The truth is still out there

Yes, I agree. That is an EXTREMELY logical viewpoint, based on what we have been given. It is extremely difficult to push the boundaries beyond exactly those points. The evidence is flimsy. And totally WITHOUT proof. It is, at best supposition.

As to "the truth is still out there".... very probably.... (he says, humming to himself).

And finally the last word goes to AP who wrote...

History is best left to the honesty of the common man in his search for a common truth, rather than in the highly questionable hands of 'experts'.

Well said that man!
Which leads to my point in all this....

Whoever sits on what side on what fence, for whatever reason....

Happy New Year Ladies and Gentlemen. No, I won't suggest a New Year's resolution.

best wishes

Phil

PS

Simon wrote...

That makes three-and-a-half camps.

If we add Francis to this we have more "camping-ology" Oh, the bells. the bells....from the Whitechapel foundary perchance?

[Cap'n Jack]

Nicely said and done, Phil, a grand summation of impoverished events.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Phil.You really have summarised the difficulties so well here.
Best
Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Well done. Short, sharp and to the point, unlike 121 years of Ripperology.

Let's hope 2010 marks a turning point.

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

I think part of your premise here, Simon, if I understand correctly - which depends upon how much good quality whisky I have imbibed - is that the person, the serial killer, we now know as Jack the Ripper never in fact existed?
And that such reports as we discuss now are nowt but the feckless indigestion of flatulent and frustrated senior police officers staring at the long glass of retirement, and wishing they had something in that glass to ease the pain of 'nothing' in view... and it is at this point that they get their imagination mixed up with their abilities to solve a simple crime.
Well, my kick off for a revolutionary 2010, is to state quite firmly that I agree with me, and I agree with you; and believe it or not the statistics also agree with this revolutionary premise of non-existance.
Let me explain.
Some five or six years ago I undertook the massive task of researching the actual statistics of such murders and attacks in the East End of London of which we speak here for the years from 1886 until 1889; and again believe it or not I was the first person on this planet ever to do that. Up till that moment in time everything the researchers and writers were saying was pure hearsay and a lot of wishful thinking.
For what the statistics showed was that in those years, 1886 until 1889, the rate of such murderous attacks remained exactly the same, averaging about 17 such attacks for those four years.
Now I pondered at the time, and I still ponder now, for if truly a serial killer had arrived slap bang in such a small area of statistics in 1888 and murdered from 5 to 8 women in that year then the statistics should have revealed that, and one would have expected to have seen a dramatic rise in the statistics for that year... but not a blip.
I would suggest two options are available from the statistics.
Firstly... Jack the Ripper was never there, and he killed nobody.
Secondly... Jack the Ripper was murdering women throughout those four years.
Take your pick.
But don't pick and mix!

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Yes, you understand perfectly. There was no such person as Jack the Ripper; no knuckle-dragging psychopath [Jewish or otherwise] or top-hatted doctor toting a Gladstone bag roaming the streets of Whitechapel. Put serial killers out of your mind. JtR was a carefully-crafted official invention to explain something very different that was going on at the time.

And we are starting to close in on that "something very different".

Care to join?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hello AP,

I am interested in your statistics, the results of which you summarize, saying that from "1886 until 1889, the rate of such murderous attacks remained exactly the same, averaging about 17 such attacks for those four years."

Can you provide the data, i.e. the specific number of murders for those years? The "average" is less useful, since if there were zero murders in 1887, and 34 in 1888, one might say the average number of murders for those two years was 17.

RH

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Simon and Rob.
I never keep any of my research material, but just fire it at the sun with a rubber band and then forget about it.
However, I do believe the original thread detailing my original research and work is still available on a cd - or something - under 'Murder in the LVP'. If you can find it, I'd love to see it again myself.
If my memory serves me well, which it often doesn't, there were approx. 17 such murderous attacks in every year from 1886 through 1889 with no blips on the statistics to indicate the sudden arrival of a 'serial killer' anywhere.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Here ya go—

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4920/19767.html

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Helo Simon, Rob, AP, all

Thanks for the kind words.

Simon, that link is a Godsend. Thank you.

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Hi AP,

Yes, you understand perfectly. There was no such person as Jack the Ripper; no knuckle-dragging psychopath [Jewish or otherwise] or top-hatted doctor toting a Gladstone bag roaming the streets of Whitechapel. Put serial killers out of your mind. JtR was a carefully-crafted official invention to explain something very different that was going on at the time.

And we are starting to close in on that "something very different".

Care to join?


Simon

Care to hear more, Simon.

Amitiés, melkam mishät,
David

[lynn cates]

music

Hello Simon.

"Yes, you understand perfectly. There was no such person as Jack the Ripper; no knuckle-dragging psychopath [Jewish or otherwise] or top-hatted doctor toting a Gladstone bag roaming the streets of Whitechapel. Put serial killers out of your mind. JtR was a carefully-crafted official invention to explain something very different that was going on at the time. And we are starting to close in on that "something very different"."

If that's your tune, will you permit me to sing in your chorus?

The best.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

To use an archaeological metaphor we have done the heavy digging and pegged out our site. Now we are on our hands and knees with soft brushes, carefully preserving as much detail as possible.

All I can tell you at the moment is that it's a very exciting find.

Regards,

Simon