The Nature and Character of Anderson

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thanks Stewart, that's what I thought.

I think the following is pretty clear from chapter 9:

The house to house search

1) They were looking for a man who lived alone or had premises that he could use in the immediate vicinity.
2) They satisfied themselves that they checked out every such man and there was nothing to implicate any of them.
3) They concluded that he must live with people.
4) They concluded that he must be a Polish Jew, otherwise he would have been shopped by those people.

It seems to me that the house to house search did not uncover any particular individual.

The identification

1) Anderson does not state why this man was taken in for identification.
2) The identification proved their conclusions to be correct as the man identified was a Polish Jew.
3) Anderson does not think of this man as a mere suspect. In the eyes of Anderson, he is Jack the Ripper. Given the powers of the French police, he would have been brought to justice.

[GregBaron]

A conundrum wrapped in an enigma?

Hi Greg, I think it's the latter ('rearing it's ugly head' as you say).

Thanks Stewart, that's what I thought. Darn. Every time I try to look further into words I come up empty.

I suppose Anderson is much like the case itself.....what's that saying......"an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by a mystery.."

I sure hope somebody stumbles upon the missing link someday....

Greg

[Stewart P Evans]

The latter

Thanks for posting the above Stewart, right from the Book even......
Anderson was probably right about the enterprising journalist not that we can extrapolate much from that....
I find the term unmentionable vices interesting, which perhaps suggests other horrors besides the murder and mutilation we are all aware of........does this infer that he knew other things?
Or is this simply the old masturbation story rearing its ugly head again (no pun intended)...
Greg

Hi Greg, I think it's the latter ('rearing it's ugly head' as you say).

[GregBaron]

Unmentionable?

Thanks for posting the above Stewart, right from the Book even......

Anderson was probably right about the enterprising journalist not that we can extrapolate much from that....

I find the term unmentionable vices interesting, which perhaps suggests other horrors besides the murder and mutilation we are all aware of........does this infer that he knew other things?

Or is this simply the old masturbation story rearing its ugly head again (no pun intended)...

Greg

[Stewart P Evans]

Book

And as it appears in Anderson's book.

[Stewart P Evans]

Context

To put what Anderson said into context it is only fair to quote the preceding paragraph also.

'I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him; but he refused to give evidence.
In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.'

To me the meaning is clear, put simply the murderer was identified and was a Polish Jew, a definitely ascertained fact.

Others may put their own interpretation on it, but I see this as nothing more than an exercise in semantics.

[GregBaron]

A specific Jew...

The 'he' refers to the man Anderson claimed the police 'knew' was Jack the Ripper.

Indeed. Thank you Mr. Evans.

But this contradicts the below.....

For what it's worth, Paul Begg in an answer to me in March of this year at JtR Forums argued that the "definitely ascertained fact" only referred to Anderson's contention that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was a Polish Jew, and not that it was "a definitely ascertained fact" that the man was the Ripper.

So the fact was that the Ripper was a known low-class Polish Jew not that the Ripper was some low-class Polish Jew or that just any low-class Jew would do...

Greg

[Chris]

Anderson clearly meant that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the murderer was a (particular) Polish Jew.

[Stewart P Evans]

The 'he'

No not confused Chris, as this sticks to the point of semantics.
The question here of course is who is the antecedent of "he"?
Greg

The 'he' refers to the man Anderson claimed the police 'knew' was Jack the Ripper.

[GregBaron]

Who, he, me, thee?

So that ties the relevant phrase to the contention that the man was a Polish Jew and not to the man's candidacy as the killer. Confused?

No not confused Chris, as this sticks to the point of semantics.

"In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."

The question here of course is who is the antecedent of "he"?

Greg

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Greg

For what it's worth, Paul Begg in an answer to me in March of this year at JtR Forums argued that the "definitely ascertained fact" only referred to Anderson's contention that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was a Polish Jew, and not that it was "a definitely ascertained fact" that the man was the Ripper.

Since you are analyzing wording, I think that is a point worth considering. To me, they are one and the same thing... Anderson said that here was a man who we thought was a Ripper but we were unable to bring him to justice, and that he was a Polish Jew.

But Paul is correct to point out that the phrase in question appears in the wording "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."

So that ties the relevant phrase to the contention that the man was a Polish Jew and not to the man's candidacy as the killer. Confused?

Best regards

Chris

[GregBaron]

Definitely Ascertained Fact!

Since this phrase sticks in our head I thought we might break it down semantically and see if it suggests anything.

Typically when one says ‘fact’ other verbal adornments are unnecessary. This phrase seems highly qualified. Definite, ok, it’s a fact, there is no question about it, as we like to say in the States, “that’s a fact Jack.” So he wants us to make sure we know it’s a fact, don’t dare question it. Now when you look at ascertain, we have a very specific word.

as•cer•tain
   [as-er-teyn] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to find out definitely; learn with certainty or assurance;determine: to ascertain the facts.
2. Archaic . to make certain, clear, or definitely known.

Origin & History
early 15c., "to inform, to give assurance," from O.Fr. acertener"to assure" (13c.), from a "to" + certain "certain" (see certain).Modern meaning of "to find out for sure by experiment or investigation" is first attested 1794.

I’ve highlighted in red what I think the important part of the definition. Experiment or investigation implies some sort of evidence was obtained does it not?

So let’s return to our favorite suspect Koz. Suppose, for example, his sister contacted police and showed them Annie Chapman’s two cheap rings found in one of Koz's pockets. She says he’s increasingly out of control so they haul him to the nuthouse. We all know the rest including all the holes…

The idea here is that there is a true story upon which the definitely ascertained fact is based.

The other option of this heavy language overkill is that he was trying to hammer it into our heads because it had no basis in reality. Total nonsense but I’ll make sure you believe it with this unassailable phrase.... It’s not merely a fact but a definitely ascertained fact! Ha, try to deny that.

So in case 1, the threat was eliminated and the authorities thought revelation might instigate a pogrom against the Jews so they kept it quiet………….

Case 2, Anderson wasn’t so fond of Jews himself so he blamed one to make himself and his Christian cohorts look better as the judgment of history was no doubt nigh…...........but what of the judgment of his God?

I’m sure there are other interpretations. My purpose here is to see what people think of this choice of words and if they might reveal something directly or more subconsciously….between the lines as they say…

Another possibility - Anderson was fond of purple prose, more a Marcel Proust than an Ernest Hemingway…………!

Greg

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's an interesting quote from Raymond Blaine Fosdick, former Commissioner of Accounts, City of New York, and author of European Police Systems [1915] which affords us a glimpse of Robert Anderson.

In briefly discussing the Commissionerships of Warren and Monro he quotes Anderson's The Lighter Side of My Official Life—

"His [Monro's] predecessor had been driven out by the Home Office and he soon yielded to the same pressure . . . Godfrey Lushington's intervention and influence as Under-Secretary (of the Home Office) were generally provocative and his manner irritating . . ."

In a footnote, Fosdick observed—

"This, it must be remembered, is the testimony of a man who did not himself succeed in maintaining very friendly relations with the officials with whom he had to deal, either at the Home Office or at Scotland Yard."

Which rather begs the question of how Robert Anderson contrived to remain Assistant Commissioner for thirteen years.

Fosdick also noted that Anderson's TLSOMOL was "interestingly written, but shows decided bias at certain points."

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

Stewart and Rob

Thanks for your replies.

Actually, I think it would have been more appropriate if I'd asked the question on the Swanson thread, so I'll follow up there.

[Howard Brown]

While its true that some officials other than Anderson kept official data and that would also constitute a possible violation of police policy, I think Mr. E. has made his point here that Anderson could possibly be guilty of policy violation.

Allow me to ask whether the examples provided and other examples that you have,Mr. E, were appropriated by SRA when Anderson was the veritable Boss or in a subordinate position within the constabulary?

Further...are the documents he appropriated documents which were pertinent to pending issues or were they insignificant documents in the scheme of things?

Thanks for providing what you have so far.