Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[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.

[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

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

[The Good Michael]

I've been reading this thread, or catching up on it the past hour or so. I am somewhat dismayed at all the Anti-SRA stuff without a thread of evidence. There is complete flippancy on the part of some who seem to have an "Oh, everyone knows about Anderson" attitude as if we who have never spent time in the man's company are not privy to all the secrets the Aunties (antis) know about him. Rob has proceeded in a forthright manner, to criticize many points in Simon's arguments and article, and the only rebuttal thus far has been a smug suggestion to do some homework on the subject. Very pleasant stuff, eh? There are only a few possibilities here. 1) Anderson was telling what he believed to be the truth; 2) Anderson was lying to cover up something; 3) Anderson hated Jews.

If the Aunties care to go into detail on points 2 and 3, with corroborated evidence and documentation, we'd all love to read what they have to say. If they want to throw out conspiracy theories... well, that kind of crap is what makes this whole topic often ridiculous.

I'd like to add to the Aunties in my best wish for Christmas harmony, ... Humbug!

Cheers,

Mike

[robhouse]

"In my article I demonstrated how the Macnaghten/Anderson/Swanson "evidence" was shakier than a house of cards, and how in a number of instances SRA proved untrustworthy. Whether or not you care to believe them is your problem.

In the meantime you and the pro-Anderson camp might like to have a pow-wow and consider providing one single scintilla of evidence to substantiate SRA's Jew/Polish Jew/Pole story, the integrity of the Swanson marginalia and the worth of Macnaghten's memorandum, because at the moment every one of you is running on nothing but blind faith."

Yes Simon,

You are right. How foolish of me to expect that you could answer a single one of the criticisms I pointed out in my post. I should of course accept whatever you say, since obviously the more people declare that Anderson was "seriously disturbed" I guess the more it must be true. Of course there never was a JTR... what an absurd idea. I bow to your much greater insights.

RH

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Captain

I trust that you are on the mend from this year’s hospital trip..

Like you I share your skepticism on ‘experts’, indeed in authority figures in general. Something you may have noticed has gotten me into trouble in the past.

Thank God I ignored the advice of my mother’s doctor the week before last and we got her to hospital when we did. However I am now very much in the hands of ‘experts’ who clearly understand serious illness better than I do. And thank god they do. We have to trust them every time we get on a plane or buy a new computer!

As for ‘experts in the area of History, well in my field I wouldn’t get far without them, they are my bread and butter, I’m not a writer, author or researcher like you guys. (Actually I was going to ask you if you would be interested in giving me some ‘expert’ time on the Hammersmith murders?)

My old boss used to say “an expert' is anyone who has read more than two books and is willing to sign a release form for less than a hundred quid” that was of course in the glory days when TV companies still had budgets…and its not something I subscribe to…one has a duty to get the best and most up to date information that one can, and asking the right questions of the right experts, well that’s where I am.

Lets hope the New Year brings many a happy hour on the subject of SRA and many difficult questions. I’m certain that it would bring a smile to his face..

Merry Xmas all

Pirate

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm firmally with Simon in regard to SRA and his questionable veracity; and I dislike the word 'expert' even more than that word 'ripperologist'.
It is often the 'experts', especially in regard to history, that lead us badly astray.
Personally I would question SRA's veracity and honesty because of the incident in his younger days where he was accused by two respectable ladies of acting 'indecently' towards them on a train.
We never hear of this peculiar incident from the 'experts', no more than we hear of Tumblety's arrest in the UK on manslaughter charges by those 'experts' concerned... simply because the two incidents do not tally with the 'experts' distorted and manipulated view of 'history'.
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'.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

Well at least we agree on one thing: Anderson knew the answer to the WM [he just wasn't telling anyone]. I won't say he knew the identity of JtR because there was no such person, and it is foolish of us to believe there ever was.

I understand Paul's ladder analogy, but if the bottom rungs are Anderson, Macnaghten and the frankly suspect Swanson marginalia then it is not a ladder I would ever care to scale. Far better to start from scratch and build a better ladder.

As Samuel Goldwyn once said, "Gentlemen, include me out".

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

I didn’t say that Simon. I said that martin Fido was an expert in Victorian Literature, had studied SRA’s writing, largely on theology, and formed the opinion that on the subject of Jack the Ripper SRA would NOT have lied.

As he is a human being and not a computer, he is as subject to error as any other expert in their particular field.

My point was simply that those of us who are not experts (and I’m not completely sure what qualification that requires) are bound to add extra weight to their opinions, and are justified in quoting them when referencing the subject they specialize in.

Of course I’m aware that you know Martin , Paul and Keith well. This debate has indeed been going for many years. The point I was making is that for a number of years Ripperology has been sidelined by lesser debates from Maybrick and Sickert to last years Andrew Cook and the recent morgue Attendant, And I’m hoping this years debate wont be high-jacked by a ‘stack of Victorian porn’….

My personal opinion is that SRA genuinely believed that the identity of JtR was known…Of course whether he was right or not is another question altogether. And clearly it would be foolish not to appreciate the complex nature of the pro’s and con’s and fore and againsts…

Paul Begg made an interesting observation that Ripperology is like a ladder and at some point you have to except the bottom runs will hold your weight to test the runs above them…

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Don,

Who am I to argue?

SRA was as reliable as an Austin Allegro. Now there really was a piece of automotive crap. These turkeys didn't even roll off the assembly line with the requisite number of nuts and screws. You were lucky if you got one with four wheels.

And Pirate Jack—

You really are such a good-hearted sucker. There's a preacher somewhere waiting just for you. And he is going to cream your wallet.

" . . . the only expert on the subject of SRA is Martin Fido. Which is why he is quoted by Paul Begg." Martin "has read the works of SRA and is able to place it in context".

Whoop de doo! So have I. It sure beats sleeping tablets.

In 1988 Martin, Keith, Paul and I gave Ripper seminars in Whitechapel. I love them all and treasure the memory. But funnily enough I don't remember you.

Please explain why Martin's "expert opinion" means that SRA didn't lie about the identity of the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

[Supe]

Simon,

SRA was about as reliable as an Edsel. They both had loose screws and a few nuts missing

In fact, the Edsel was a well-constructed car with a lower than normal rate of reported mechanical defects for that time. The reason it sold poorly (thus becoming the butt of jokes) was two-fold. For one, in an era when styling over substance was king (and not queen) its novel approach to design (a vulval front end among other things) found few takers. Secondly, it failed to establish a definite market niche in the already crowded FoMoCo product line.

But, if SRA was as a reliable as the Edsel, he was quite reliable. I suggest you find a new analogy.

Don.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff:

You said:

But surely the only expert we know on Anderson and on Victorian Literature, namely Martin Fido, does NOT...

Jeff,Jeff,Jeff...

What does Mr. Fido's or anyone's abilities in Victorian lit have to do with what SRA posits ?

I refer to three cases for your perusal....and review once more what SRA posits...

1. The Mylett Murder in 1888.

2. The Waterloo Bridge Murder in 1857 ( SRA said that "someone" told him that that murder was a "hit" committed by the French secret police ).

3. The West End murder which occurred a few years after the WM...in 1895 I believe... which we went over..over there on the other site...where SRA just "knew" the man he interrogated was guilty....and claimed it was a "moral certainty" the guy was guilty. The courts felt otherwise.

I don’t know Howard I’m not an expert.

However the only expert on the subject of SRA is Martin Fido. Which is why he is quoted by Paul Begg.

I guess it has something to do with the fact that Martin Studies this stuff and lecturers at University on the subject. Its what he does for a living. Also that he has read the works of SRA and is able to place it in context. Add to that his research and books.

Clearly his expert opinion is that SRA would not have lied about the identity of the Ripper.

Unfortunately us lesser mortals, as Mei Trow points out on the Conference DVD, can only be guided by what experts tell us…

Which is why we put such score in people like Martin and Dr Davis..I guess their testimony would stand up in 'court'…it is however qualified opinion not gosspel.

Of course I’m aware of points 1 , 2 and 3…

However the bottom line is whether SRA would have made up the comment ‘Ascertained Fact” and I will continue to bow to MF’s learned view on the subject.

The third way is of course to sit on the fence, we can have respect for those that do, however this will be the main topic of Ripper discussion over the coming year..fence or no fence

Like Richard Jones “of that I’m certain”

Pirate Jack

[Simon Wood]

Hi jason_c,

Be sure to put plenty of salt, pepper and ketchup on your online hat.

Hi Rob,

In my article I demonstrated how the Macnaghten/Anderson/Swanson "evidence" was shakier than a house of cards, and how in a number of instances SRA proved untrustworthy. Whether or not you care to believe them is your problem. More will be contained in my forthcoming book.

In the meantime you and the pro-Anderson camp might like to have a pow-wow and consider providing one single scintilla of evidence to substantiate SRA's Jew/Polish Jew/Pole story, the integrity of the Swanson marginalia and the worth of Macnaghten's memorandum, because at the moment every one of you is running on nothing but blind faith.

I wish you good luck with that.

Regards,

Simon

[jason_c]

Simon,

It is very easy to make vague statements like "contradiction, misdirection and disinformation were his middle names, his stock in trade, as natural to him as breathing," and "He was seriously disturbed [many historians agree on that point], inhabiting an Alice Through the Looking Glass world where up was down and right was wrong". Or "SRA was about as reliable as an Edsel. They both had loose screws and a few nuts missing."

However, I dont suppose you could supply us with some examples to back this stuff up. I know the standard arguments (Mylett, Parnell commission, etc). What evidence, for example, do you have that Anderson was "seriously disturbed"? And who are the "many historians" who agree on that point?

You can just keep repeating this stuff, but I don't see the point, unless you can back it up. I am expecting you will tell me to "check my facts", "do some research", "read the Parnell commission" etc. But as you are the one making these claims, I think it is your responsibility to back them up with facts.

Rob H

If Fenian Fire by Christy Campbell is not mentioned in the next post I will eat my online hat. Its the new "Gospel" on all things anti Anderson.

[robhouse]

Simon,

It is very easy to make vague statements like "contradiction, misdirection and disinformation were his middle names, his stock in trade, as natural to him as breathing," and "He was seriously disturbed [many historians agree on that point], inhabiting an Alice Through the Looking Glass world where up was down and right was wrong". Or "SRA was about as reliable as an Edsel. They both had loose screws and a few nuts missing."

However, I dont suppose you could supply us with some examples to back this stuff up. I know the standard arguments (Mylett, Parnell commission, etc). What evidence, for example, do you have that Anderson was "seriously disturbed"? And who are the "many historians" who agree on that point?

You can just keep repeating this stuff, but I don't see the point, unless you can back it up. I am expecting you will tell me to "check my facts", "do some research", "read the Parnell commission" etc. But as you are the one making these claims, I think it is your responsibility to back them up with facts.

Rob H