The Nature and Character of Anderson

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson is, once more, the subject of debate.

Sir Robert Anderson is a very important character in the Ripper story and every so often comes under the microscope. We are told that 'much depends on the character of Anderson...' and that 'next to no research has been done' in this respect [Sir Robert Anderson: 'A Source Analysis' by Paul Begg, Ripperologist issue 100]. In fact he has 'really only been assessed by author Martin Fido, a professional academic and specialist in the Victorian period who is blessed with an interest in and understanding of the eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character...'

All well and good then. But is the reading of a few of Anderson's books on theology (several of which I have) really enough to see inside his character and nature. Obviously they will be revelatory as to his religious beliefs, beliefs which obviously will affect his character but may not actually reveal anything other than what he is prepared to show to the world.

I have already shown how wrong such character determination can be when Fido assessed Anderson and Henry Smith of the City Police as 'Neither can be imagined having any comfortable dealings with the other, or willingly exchanging confidences' [The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, Martin Fido, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1987]. In light of the letter (below, only two of four pages shown) written by Smith to Anderson in 1901, this assessment would appear to be very wide of the mark.



So it is all very well relying on secondary sources to make your assessments, but they may not always tell you enough, or reveal too much. And should any of us presume to be declared a great authority on any person unless, perhaps, we have produced a detailed, comprehensive and well-researched biography of that person? I certainly would not, and I have only a specific, albeit comprehensive, knowledge of a small area reflecting on Anderson's character. In short I am no expert. To be continued...

[Magpie]

Thank you SPE!

Very interesting letter

[Stewart P Evans]

Another Aspect

Another aspect of Anderson that I don't recall Messrs Fido and Begg saying much about is his apparent 'kleptomania' as regards official documents. There are many examples.

Anderson was a long-time civil servant and would have known the rules backwards. Did he consider himself above the rules? Did he have no scruples in this respect? Did he think that he was doing no wrong?, surely not, he would have known it was wrong. Indeed it was a serious matter to personally retain official documents, one for which you could lose your job and your pension. To put a none-too fine a point on it, it was theft.

But this didn't stop Anderson, for his personal files contained many examples. Below is a letter that Anderson personally kept and was in his files when he died. It is a letter, n.d., from the statesman Gathorne-Hardy (first Earl of Cranbrook, 1814-1906), to Sir Adolphus Liddell (1818-1885) the Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, 1867.

This letter is not even one that had been written to Anderson and is on official Home Office embossed stationery.



Surely this 'bad habit' of Anderson's reflects upon his character? And, don't forget, this is a man who was a paragon of virtue who would not lie. I'm sure he would have lied if someone had tackled him on nicking official documents. One thing that must be obvious is that there are many considerations to be taken into account when assessing the character of Anderson. To my mind this has never been done in a serious, and objective, manner. Indeed he was a complex character and much rests upon his words as regards any potential solution of the Ripper mystery.

This is not an exercise in character assassination and I don't intend it to be. I hope that it is objective, and if it isn't it would be nice to enlarge upon that. However, many of the past assessments of Anderson have been biased, one way or the other. But, surely, the more that is known about him, the more accurate any assessment will be.

I think it fair to say that he was a bit of a law unto himself.

[Stewart P Evans]

Letter From an Old Friend

In the last year of his life Anderson received this letter of solace from his old Dublin friend 'Rathmore' (1838-1919. 1st Baron Rathmore, David Robert Plunket).

[ChrisGeorge]

Another aspect of Anderson that I don't recall Messrs Fido and Begg saying much about is his apparent 'kleptomania' as regards official documents. There are many examples.

Anderson was a long-time civil servant and would have known the rules backwards. Did he consider himself above the rules? Did he have no scruples in this respect? Did he think that he was doing no wrong?, surely not, he would have known it was wrong. Indeed it was a serious matter to personally retain official documents, one for which you could lose your job and your pension. To put a none-too fine a point on it, it was theft.

Hello Stewart

You make a good point about Anderson's apparent "kleptomania" as regards official documents and I agree that does say something about his character.

In keeping such documents, a beat copper could lose his job and his pension, but I wonder if in that day a senior official would? I also have in mind Macnaghten keeping photographs of the case to show visitors. . . .

All the best

Chris

[Stewart P Evans]

Theft

Hello Stewart
You make a good point about Anderson's apparent "kleptomania" as regards official documents and I agree that does say something about his character.
In keeping such documents, a beat copper could lose his job and his pension, but I wonder if in that day a senior official would? I also have in mind Macnaghten keeping photographs of the case to show visitors. . . .
All the best
Chris

Keeping a few photographs, of which their were multiple copies (Anderson kept a set too), are a slightly different thing to official letters, each of which was unique and several nothing to do with him. Yes, he could lose his job for it - it was theft.

[jason_c]

At this point we must remember that Abberline also purportedly kept documents and files. As disagreeable as it sounds, keeping police documents was probably not limited to only a few individuals.

[Chris]

I wonder if anyone can answer a rather basic question for me: when was the serial version of Anderson's memoirs first referred to by a Ripper author? Obviously Philip Sugden (1994) discusses it, but was he the first?

[Stewart P Evans]

Blackwood's

I wonder if anyone can answer a rather basic question for me: when was the serial version of Anderson's memoirs first referred to by a Ripper author? Obviously Philip Sugden (1994) discusses it, but was he the first?

Chris, I haven't checked but I should think that credit for this goes to the authors of the A to Z. It's certainly in the 1991 first edition of their book. However, as the Blackwood's series is referred to in the 1910 press possibly others had seen this reference.

Incidentally I have a complete run of Blackwood's from 1909 to 1910 and the series abruptly ended in June 1910, well short of completion. No reason is stated but you have to wonder. Apparently there is a collection of correspondence from Anderson in the Blackwood's archives in Edinburgh.

[Rob Clack]

It's mentioned in Martin Fido's Crimes and Detection book (page 123 Hardback) which is 1987.

Rob

[Stewart P Evans]

Earlier

It's mentioned in Martin Fido's Crimes and Detection book (page 123 Hardback) which is 1987.
Rob

Well done Rob, it certainly is, I don't think that there would be an earlier mention than this in a Ripper book, but, as I say, it was mentioned in the 1910 press publicity over Anderson's revelations so it was hardly unmentioned at the time.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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