The Nature and Character of Anderson

[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]

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

[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.

[Chris]

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

[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

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Book

And as it appears in Anderson's book.

[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]

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]

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

[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.