How Are The Mighty Fallen

[caz]

Some very good and constructive points being made here now, chaps.

Of course, the very best way of proving Anderson wrong, or plain dishonest, in regard to the specific claims he made about the ripper case, is to follow the advice of the A-Z authors to the letter, and to centre research on those claims; on Swanson's apparent support for them; on Aaron Kosminski as the supposed suspect; and on the errors and contradictions that need more, not less scrutiny.

It may also be the authors' considered opinion that following their advice 'will most likely lead' to someone finally identifying the ripper, but it needn't be anyone else's opinion, considered or otherwise. Others are free to think that if it leads anywhere, it will most likely expose Anderson's claims as an utter crock. And that's what they could be doing, and far more constructively than looking for instances away from the case in hand where Anderson made a public tit of himself.

The fine line comes between advising people what to research and persuading them what to believe. So I suppose it's a case of where the individual reader sees that line being drawn in the A-Z, and whether they are likely to be intelligent enough to know when to think for themselves.

And of course, it will be fascinating to see what the new and improved A-Z has to say on the subject. If the authors thought the old ones were accurate, complete and beyond criticism they presumably wouldn't be working their balls off to produce this baby.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hey Caz,

Just to get back to your statement that seems to have caused the conflagration: I agree with you 100%. If the denigration of Anderson by some people is only for the purpose of elevating a different candidate or theory, which I believe was the initial impetus for the discussion, it begins a rocky foundation for that theory or suspect. Everyone seems to agree that Anderson, by virtue of being human, was imperfect. It is the mudslinging for purposes that must come soon, that is distasteful and will cause me to ignore any theory that has Anderson as some diabolical fiend, able to slaughter innocents (or others) at his whim.

Cheers,

Mike

Thanks Mike.

I would tweak this a bit if I were writing it to express my personal opinion:

If any individual's denigration of Anderson were for the purpose of elevating their own candidate or theory (which some believe was the initial impetus for the discussion), it would probably only come back to bite them on the arse.

Everyone seems to agree that Anderson, by virtue of being human, was imperfect. It is the mudslinging by any individual who has not yet made his purposes crystal clear that saddens me, because it just seems to provoke unnecessary bad feeling and misunderstandings in general. I will continue to look at anyone's arguments on their own merit and try to ignore any mudslinging that is either ineffectual or not required (for Simon’s spring cleaning purposes for example) or appears to have nothing constructive to offer.

Hi Simon,

If your spring cleaning exercise proves successful, and Anderson’s unsupported claims finally disappear down the plughole like so much dirty bath water, what will the next project be?

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Almost everything we know, or think we know, about Jack the Ripper is based on one sort of fiction or another, so when Anderson finally gurgles down the plughole he'll take a few other people with him and really clear the air. But I won't be hanging up my pinnie. Abberline is long overdue for a dusting. Likewise Monro and Patsy Warren. And then there's that witness who corroborated his own testimony. I tell ya, my spring cleaning list is almost endless.

It's only the dirt that's holding things together.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Some very good and constructive points being made here now, chaps.

It may also be the authors' considered opinion that following their advice 'will most likely lead' to someone finally identifying the ripper, but it needn't be anyone else's opinion, considered or otherwise. Others are free to think that if it leads anywhere, it will most likely expose Anderson's claims as an utter crock. And that's what they could be doing, and far more constructively than looking for instances away from the case in hand
X

I am not quite sure what you mean here Caz, but anyway I disagree with those who appear to be saying that Martin or Paul may define both the territory upon which we may evaluate the character of Robert Anderson and the boundaries we may not cross .
Anderson"s religiosity was but one aspect of his personality.Moreover,he was only mildly interested in The Whitechapel Murderer, to judge from his 1910 autobiography,and more worryingly from my point of view at any rate, was utterly disdainful of his victims.
Anderson was also highly political,particularly when it came to keeping Ireland as a colony of the British Empire .An ultra conservative at a time when numerous people were beginning to think more about Liberalism -Winston Churchill for example went on to join the Liberal Party returning to the Conservative Party only many years later.
In fact if we restrict ourselves purely to what Anderson thought about "the case" we find that out of the 295 pages of his memoirs as a Police Chief, only 10 pages of Chapter 9 ,actually attempt to address "the case" at all-and even these are rather vague in substance.
Anyway they come under the heading , First days at Scotland Yard---The "Whitechapel Murders"----The criminal a Polish Jew --------!!!
If we then include what little we know of what Swanson thought about it we just have a few scribbled notes in the margins of the memoirs that rather tentatively suggest one or two possible "scenarios" and a slightly off the wall comment "Kosminski was the suspect" written at the back of the book ! This comment appears a bit out of synch--- on the book"s end paper ,written in a coloured pencil and in quite a different style from the more contemplative jottings earlier on- this time round in fact ,its quite a deliberate "J"accuse" ----Kosminski!
So please lets go on viewing Anderson in all his varied " dimensions"---maybe starting with his great horror of what he believed made Kosminski such an utterly loathsome creature--- so loathsome in fact that in Anderson"s eyes he was "lower than a beast" !

[robhouse]

The comment "Kosminski was the suspect" was written in the same color pencil as the other writings on the end page AND the same color used for the majority of the margin notes on page 138. The only note written in a different color, as far as I understand, was the one note beginning "because the suspect was a Jew..." etc.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Regarding the memo from Sir Kenelm Edward Digby [Permanent Under Secretary of State, Home Office] to Charles Thomson Ritchie [Home Secretary], 22nd May 1901—

"About three months ago you requested Mr. Anderson to send in his resignation as Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police. You were led to take this step in consequence of the necessity which in your view had arisen for alteration in the staff and organization of the Metropolitan Police, which made it desirable for a new appointment to be made to the post held by Mr. Anderson. You were particularly conscious that a fresh appointment should be made to the leadership of the Criminal Investigation Department, of a person who should serve for a considerable time under Sir Edward Bradford . . ."

The memo is held at the National Archives, filed under—

P.R.O., H.O. 144/588/B5005, "Resignation of Mr. Anderson – Memo setting forth circs of case & authorising the payment of a gratuity of £1,000."

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

I think this whole Kosminski affair has perhaps been taken out of context as far as what Anderson and Swanson wrote.

Let me quote scenario based on what we know about Kosminski and Anderson and Swansons later writings.

During the series of murders the police received many hoax letters and i have no doubt that some other letters they received were from public spirited persons who genuinley believed they knew the identity of the Ripper. Likewise perhaps many officers during the course of their patrols were also stopped by the public and given details of likely suspects, as is still the case today.

In 1888 the police would have no doubt had a basic intelligence system so any information would have been collated somewhere. In fact I would suggest the content of Macs memo was compiled from such a system and not just the Ripper file, hence Ostroggs name appearing when clearly he was a non starter.

It could have been quiet possible for Kosminskis name to have been put forward at a point before his arrest, and then following his arrest he would have been flagged up yet again and catergorised as a suspect in the same way that Ostrog was despite Kosminski ever being the Ripper. Although having regard to his mental capacity and the later incident invloving a knife, and by the time he came to notice for that the Ripper case had gone cold, so any new addittions to the suspect list would be greeted with open arms by the police. He was probably the last name ever put on the list. Easy for Anderson and swanson to remember for their later writings.

[Scott Nelson]

Surely there had to be more to the elevation of Kosminski as a suspect than the possible fact that his name was the last one added to a suspect list?

[Trevor Marriott]

Surely there had to be more to the elevation of Kosminski as a suspect than the possible fact that his name was the last one added to a suspect list?

Well you tell me as I said why was Ostrogg named as a suspect no difference there he was named by a senior officer. Kosminski the same. No corroboration in either case. Anderson nor Swanson did any investigitve work themselves so they had to have obtained the info from somewhere or someone.,and there is nothing written to suggest where or when or from whom and in what context the info was provided. So it has to be questionable and not to be relied on

I know there are people on here who desparately want to belive Kosminski was the Ripper but there is no hard evidence. The writings of Swanson,Anderson, and Abberline cannot be treated as evidence.

[Steven Russell]

Trevor Marriott

Dear Trevor,

As a fan of the Anderson / Polish Jew theory, it pains me to say that your last post seems to make a lot of sense. Perhaps we should regard Abberline's theories on Klosovski in a similar light i.e. old hands clutching at straws in order to claim that they had solved the mystery after all.

Bloody Hell.

Best regards,

Steve.

[Steven Russell]

I meant no. 607.

Regards,

Steve.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dear Trevor,

As a fan of the Anderson / Polish Jew theory, it pains me to say that your last post seems to make a lot of sense. Perhaps we should regard Abberline's theories on Klosovski in a similar light i.e. old hands clutching at straws in order to claim that they had solved the mystery after all.

Bloody Hell.

Best regards,

Steve.

You are totally correct

[Jonathan H]

A counter-argument to the previous posts is that Anderson seems to have had one chief suspect from about 1895 [according to Griffiths] until, presumably, his death.

This particular Polish Jew suspect is seemingly backed up by Swanson, who named him, the same name, 'Kosminski', as mentioned in a confidential police document by Anderson's deputy.

To lumber Anderson [and Swanson] with Macnaghten's toing and froing between three 'unlikely' suspects -- and then his elevation of the one who was the class-race-nationality opposite of Kosminski -- is arguably unfair.

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Regarding the memo from Sir Kenelm Edward Digby [Permanent Under Secretary of State, Home Office] to Charles Thomson Ritchie [Home Secretary], 22nd May 1901—

The memo is held at the National Archives, filed under—

P.R.O., H.O. 144/588/B5005, "Resignation of Mr. Anderson – Memo setting forth circs of case & authorising the payment of a gratuity of £1,000."

Hello Simon,

Thank you for posting this.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I have gone to great lengths to point out that anything Anderson or swanson wrote must have come from an un corroborated source as i have previoulsy mentioned. It may have come from one or more of the many officers involved in the case. It is a fact that rank and file officers talk and discuss cases with each other.

Do you not think that it is strange that no one else connected to The Ripper investigation has subsequently spoken out save for senior officers all wanting to sell their memoirs, and there is no documentation to support either swanson or Anderson, and Abberline for that matter

Then we have good old Major Smith saying in his memoirs no one had a clue as to the identity of The Ripper. He is the only one its safe to beleive