Anderson's theological writings

[Jonathan H]

To ChrisGeorge

I think that is a very astute counter-argument.

I think that Jason C also makes a good point too, about the dodgy timing of Anderson's downbeat view of [allegedly] un-cooperative Polish Jews in the East End.

Or, is behind this controversial claim of 1910 really just the Kosminski family who did not give up one of their own, and whom police, or at least the chiefs, only learned about -- as a Ripper suspect -- after he had been sectioned?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Jonathan

We don't know Sir Robert Anderson's reasons for suspecting Kosminski, presumably meaning Aaron Kosminski, beyond the notion that the suspect was recognized by a fellow Jew, presumably as most of us think, Joseph Lawende.

But I would submit to you that his contention that no Jew would give another Jew up to Gentile justice and that his own people were protecting him, might be at the heart of how he felt about the East End Jews, and that he thought in the first place that the killer was likely to have been a Jew.

I would suggest that due to his attitude toward the low class immigrant Jews the early suspicion that the Ripper could have been a Jew, i.e., Leather Apron, was believed by Anderson, and that he hung onto that suspicion particularly when a likely candidate such as Kosminski was identified as the possible murderer. Thus what you say about Anderson's claim that Kosminski "goes against the expected bias" is quite the opposite: a deranged Jew is the type of man Anderson would have suspected as the killer all along.

Best regards

Chris George

Except we dont know when he came to believe that low class Polish Jews did not give each other to Gentile justice. Anderson was writing at the end of his career. Did he come to believe this in 1888? 1892? 1902? Neither you or I know for sure when his bias came about.

To ChrisGeorge

I think that is a very astute counter-argument.

I think that Jason C also makes a good point too, about the dodgy timing of Anderson's downbeat view of [allegedly] un-cooperative Polish Jews in the East End.

Or, is behind this controversial claim of 1910 really just the Kosminski family who did not give up one of their own, and whom police, or at least the chiefs, only learned about -- as a Ripper suspect -- after he had been sectioned?

Hello Jason and Jonathan

Thank you both for your replies.

Jason, technically you are correct that we don't know when Anderson came to suspect Kosminski, and yet Anderson's own words betray the fact that he had a bias against the Jews, so as I said in my post, it seems clear that he was predisposed to think poorly of Jews both as criminals and, even more damningly, as protectors of criminals. The guy was a piece of work. And that's why the fellow takes up so many bytes in this forum.

Jonathan, thank you for your kind words about my post.

Jonathan, Anderson is speaking generically about the Jews, which is what upset the Jewish Chronicle's editorialist Mentor (aka editor Leopold Greenberg). Greenberg correctly called Anderson out in regard to the unfairness of the accusation that the former Scotland Yard official made against the Jews in general -- with Anderson saying in essence, "these people won't give up one of their own to Gentile justice, that's just the type of people they are!" -- so it clearly wasn't just an accusation against the Kosminski family.

Best regards

Chris

[Stewart P Evans]

Immigrants

Anderson certainly voiced his opinion on immigrants.

[Jonathan H]

To ChrisGeorge

Once again you make a very compelling case for Anderson the despicable.

My caveat would be that Anderson comes across, albeit in his own memoir, as a very conceited, superior, aren't I a card, person but also one -- relatively -- free of class, sectarian, and nationalistic prejudices, so long as they are not Catholics.

Therefore, my reading of the comments he published in 1910, about recalcitrant Polish Jews, is that, predictably, his indestructible ego was trumping his deteriorating memory. He was thus providing two, inter-connected excuses as to why the fiend was not brought to justice.

1) The murderer was from a vile, ethnic sub-group who routinely protect criminals in their midst, the bloody swine!

2) The penultimate example of this sort of appalling attitude and behaviour was by the witness who openly proclaimed that he had identified the suspect as the murderer, yet also said he would not testify against a fellow member of the tribe!

Anderson's subsequent and public mortification at the bomb which went off amongst English Jews, I think, was genuine, though he was unable to simply admit that he had exaggerated and/or over-reached.

PS

It is such a silly, desperate and unbelievable tale: yes, it's him, but I refuse to testify! What are you going to do about that, copper? And with the murderer -- via facial expressions alone! -- giving the game away too.

How about the witness just saying: no, I don't think it's him, and the suspect remaining calm rather than, in this pantomime, exclaiming, yes, it's me, I'm the Terror, God of Abraham help me, I've been recognised!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

On Chris George's blog site recently, I added a comment that might show (in some people's opinions at least) a possibly backdrop scenario about Anderson and his comments. Here is a redacted version of it. I hope Chris doesn't mind me quoting myself from his blog.. don't think he will..

I’ll add something if I may? I do not take this small additive of mine too seriously, but it must be added that Sir Robert Anderson, Assistent Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has been accused, if that is the correct terminology, of leaving hints of anti-semitism in some of his writings, whilst being a zealous Christian, and indeed, on numerous occasions, a preacher of his form of the gospels. Some of his writings are not exactly pro-zionist. Could this have, in the background perhaps, any influence upon his pointing the finger towards a Polish Jew in his biography, The Lighter Days of My Official Life, written in 1910? (Though the referenced part was written in Blackwood’s magazine at an earlier date.)

The “Anglocising” attitude mentioned in your article does bear some thinking about, as the general Victorian attitude to almost any foreign race or creed was extremely “we will teach then and show them the ways of behaviour, religion and social inter-action." This was not just apparent in the conquered lands of the Empire, but also towards the influx of the migrant. (As Stewart has kindly provided an example of above)

It has been a well-known comment that well up until the 1960’s, there were still certain members of the Met Police Force, at varying levels, still with undertones of both racial and anti-semitic thoughts. Though this has been very much under played, it emerged in the 1970’s and 1980’s more as a racialist problem.

Now if the influx of Jews from the Poland/Russian/Bulgarian/Hungarian/German countries was of such a large quantity as we know it was in the Late Victorian period, surely it is only right to compare this influx with the West Indian, then Asian influx 1950’s to 1980’s? Could there have been any noticable anti-semitic attitude amongst the Metropolitan Police in the 1880’s? And could this have anything to do with the attitude towards the Jews involved/mentioned in the JTR saga, one wonders?

Large influxes of foreign groups in any country causes friction within the population. The Met Police are not excluded from this... and there have been sections within this group known to have been rascist in their attitudes past. Perhaps it is only natural to allow the same was the case in the LVA. Except in those days, it was accepted that one could say things about and have an attitude towards foreigners that today is simply not acceptable.

kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

Yes, all good points there for sure.

I was just arguing that the critical element might not be a love or loathing for Jews, or immigrants, but rather an overweening need to see himself, and for his readers to see him -- as usual -- as the smartest person in the room when it came to the Ripper.

That he bravely stood his ground to the spineless Home Sec. over a tabloid-driven hysteria, wherein the victims 'helped' the murderer kill them -- being degraded crims' themselves they deftly avoided the beat police (Macnaghten in his memoirs claims he went down to Whitechapel and sat with harlots and their pimps, expressing compassion for their plight).

That the initial profile was correct and even with Anderson abroad -- he wasn't -- the house to house search proved the police analysis correct. But it was the Polish Jews who retarded the forces of English justice.

I am arguing that Anderson was looking for iron-clad excuses. If his fading memory had told him that certain un-cooperative Eskimoes were to blame, he would have blamed them instead.

[PaulB]

Can you cite the anti-Semitic material in any of his writings.

[PaulB]

Again, "...an overweening need to see himself, and for his readers to see him -- as usual -- as the smartest person in the room when it came to the Ripper." In general comparison to his contemporaries, on what evidence do you base this judgement of Anderson's character?

[Jonathan H]

Oh hi, Paul.

Is your first post directed at me, or ChrisGeorge, or Phil Carter?

I myself have been arguing the position that Anderson is not anti-Semitic, and therefore for him to accuse a Jew -- arguably -- goes against the expected bias of this admittedly complex historical source. ChrisGoerge put a strong counter-argument to that line of argument.

I base my judgement of Anderson's historical reliability as a source on primary and secondary sources, eg. Major Griffiths, H.L Adam, his own memoirs where every, arrogant anecdote he relates portrays himself as smarter, or more moral, or more knowledgeable, or whatever, than anybody else.

Yet Anderson also portrays himself -- as do others of that era -- as an incorruptible civil servant, one who would not favour his own upper class in a criminal inquiry, and who stringently based his judgements on the facts, and not prejudices or string-pullers. He is happy to mix with, and help people of different classes, faiths and races, and a case can be mounted that in 1888 he did indeed keep a cool head about the Whitechapel murders whilst others succumbed to as ludicrous hysteria (eg. no rail-roading of some poor, handy wretch.)

Also, I base my opinion on absorbing the varied opinions of secondary sources like yourself in 'The Facts', of Martin Fido -- who sees him as conceited but not deceitful -- of Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow who interpret him as demonstrably dodgy and over-reaching.

Having read his memoirs, I find his letter about the controversy of his memoirs, in terms of the Jews, genuine and wrenching in their regret at the outrage caused, but that he was sincere in believing that it was a Jew who had been 'unhesitatingly' identified by another Jew -- and who refused to testify.

For what it is worth, I published an article in 'Ripperologist' (called 'Safely Caged') a few years ago, which tried to reconcile opposing points of view, primary and secondary, on Anderson's reliability to show that -- despite errors caused by an 'overweening' ego and poor memory -- Anderson was probably right about the culpability of his preferred suspect.

The few who read 'Safely Caged' let me know, quite politely I thought, that it had utterly failed; that my argument fell hopelessly between two stools, right on its rear.

[jason_c]

Hello Jason and Jonathan

Thank you both for your replies.

Jason, technically you are correct that we don't know when Anderson came to suspect Kosminski, and yet Anderson's own words betray the fact that he had a bias against the Jews, so as I said in my post, it seems clear that he was predisposed to think poorly of Jews both as criminals and, even more damningly, as protectors of criminals. The guy was a piece of work. And that's why the fellow takes up so many bytes in this forum.

Jonathan, thank you for your kind words about my post.

Jonathan, Anderson is speaking generically about the Jews, which is what upset the Jewish Chronicle's editorialist Mentor (aka editor Leopold Greenberg). Greenberg correctly called Anderson out in regard to the unfairness of the accusation that the former Scotland Yard official made against the Jews in general -- with Anderson saying in essence, "these people won't give up one of their own to Gentile justice, that's just the type of people they are!" -- so it clearly wasn't just an accusation against the Kosminski family.

Best regards

Chris

Yes, but was the Kosminski case(amongst others) the reason he made such allegations against low class Jews?

Assuming he didnt often think of low-class East End Polish Jews before his 1888 CID appointment. On his date of joining the CID he may have been positively disposed towards all Jews. What made him say such things about low class Jews then? Perhaps it was his experience with the Kosminski family and others from 1888 onwards.

[ChrisGeorge]

Yes, but was the Kosminski case(amongst others) the reason he made such allegations against low class Jews?

Assuming he didnt often think of low-class East End Polish Jews before his 1888 CID appointment. On his date of joining the CID he may have been positively disposed towards all Jews. What made him say such things about low class Jews then? Perhaps it was his experience with the Kosminski family and others from 1888 onwards.

Hi Jason

The way I read Anderson's memoirs about his statement about the non-cooperative attitude of low-class East End Polish Jews -- i.e., they protect their own and refuse to work with Gentile justice -- is that it was based on other cases and not just the example of Kosminski and his people. Pizer, for example, would be another case along almost similar lines, although I am not sure Anderson had Pizer in mind -- I read it that he meant in regard to Jewish suspects in other crimes of a different nature.

All the best

Chris

[Jonathan H]

To Jason C

Yes, I think that too is food for thought, for sure.

I argued in 'Safely Caged' that Anderson was not an anti-
Semite, quite the reverse, yet he get himself into a nasty pickle in 1910.

That this might be because his memory had conflated the Kosminski family ('suspecting the worst ...' Macnaghten, unofficial version) with all Polish Jews of that era, who were perhaps recalcitrant when it came to giving up one of their own, but only if they were thieves or something like that.

Therefore 'certain' low-class Jews really meant the low-class family.

If we put together the bits and pieces for a working hypothesis, the family knew that Aaron hated whores, that he was periodically violent, that he was a chronic self-abuser, and that they could not account for their member on the nights of the murders.

Terrified of reprisals, they kept it quiet, or were not absolutely sure, until he attacked one of their own with a knife and they had him hastily sectioned. Only then did 'Kosmisnki' come to police attention, or at least senior police attention -- say sometime in 1891 -- and Anderson realized, to his acute frustration, that it was too late.

The suspect had been 'safely caged' from the police.

No wonder the hope that he was dead calcified into a belief.

All this was not Adnerson's fault, at all, but it ate away at him and later his failing memory produced a myth, fusing 'Kosminski' with Sadler and Lawende, behind which is the truth: a brother who knew he had identified the fiend, and the fiend, in turn, knew he that had been identified -- by a brother. But he would not give him up to the hangman if his sibling could be found to be hopessly insane --which he was.

That behind the silly 'Seaside Home' pantomime is real human anguish and tragedy; of a family 'suspecting the worst'.

[mariab]

I agree with Chris George here. My special field is the French (and Italian) 19th century and I'd have to say that there was practically noone who was not at least a little bit anti-semitic in the 19th century, apart from pronounced liberals and socialists, or other groups with a special agenda.

[jason_c]

I agree with Chris George here. My special field is the French (and Italian) 19th century and I'd have to say that there was practically noone who was not at least a little bit anti-semitic in the 19th century, apart from pronounced liberals and socialists, or other groups with a special agenda.

I wouldnt disagree with much of this maria. Whats important I believe is wether Anderson was more or less anti-semitic than most. And was this anti-semitism based on theology? Or was it based on his experience of dealing with low class Jews as Assist Comissioner of the CID?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jason,

Well, as we have two men, Anderson and Monro, in top positions in the force with the same extreme theological viewpoint, is it plausible that their theological views did influence the methodology that they tried to convey on to others below them within the force, without referencing to that specific theology?


kindly

Phil