Daily Express 12th. March 1910

[Phil Carter]

Herewith extract from Daily Express 12th. March 1910

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

The transcript of the above is as follows:-

Sir Robert Anderson, who said in "Blackwood's Magazine" that Jack the Ripper was a Jew, and was shieldedby Jews, and who was called to task by "Mentor" in the "Jewish Chronicle" last week, writes to that paper this week: "I recognise that in this matter I said either too much or too little. But the fact is that as my words were merely a repitition of what I published several years ago without exciting comment, they flowed from my pen without consideration."
"Mentor's" comment on this is that Sir Robert does not meet his objection to the assertion that "Jews who knew that Jack the Ripper had done his foul deeds shielded him from the police and guarded him so he could continue his horrible career just because he was a Jew."

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

A point that I am trying to make here is as follows:-

Anderson states that he first published the viewpoint "several years ago without exciting comment". He previously states that he either said "too much or too little".

If he recognizes that he either said too much or too little, he cannot then retract it in the case of "too much", so he is left with the position of expanding upon his "too little" or staying silent on "too much".

Thoughts anyone?

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

more, please

Hello Phil. That's a reasonable assumption.

I, for one, wish he had said more.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lynn,

Ok. To expand a tad, although not directly in conjunction with the above statement, bring in the "not in the interests of the old department" line in speaking out...

How can one first say "too much" (as seems the case here) and also say in a close conjunction on the same subject that it isn't in the "interests of the old department" to say "too much"?

Something of an opposite, no?

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

convolution

Hello Phil. My guess--for what little it is worth--is that by "too much" he means his attributing the murderer as a Jew.

By "too little" perhaps he means his lack of detail, whom the witness; whom the suspect.

Then, he equivocates with "too much"--referring now to name, etc.

I agree that this is too convoluted for a mere mortal such as myself.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello all,

A point that I am trying to make here is as follows:-

Anderson states that he first published the viewpoint "several years ago without exciting comment". He previously states that he either said "too much or too little".

If he recognizes that he either said too much or too little, he cannot then retract it in the case of "too much", so he is left with the position of expanding upon his "too little" or staying silent on "too much".

Thoughts anyone?

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil.

Whenever I read this all I see is Anderson suggesting that in his previous article he either said too much (ie; I should have said nothing), or too little (that I should have better explained myself). He should have said nothing, or considerably more than he did.

I think he is only referring to his apparent condemnation of Jews with respect to the murders. That he should not have voiced his opinion on the matter at all, or that he should have made his opinion considerably clearer than he did.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Helo Jon,

Yes, I normally read it sort of that way too.. but sitting here earlier today, I put in into conjunction with his "old department" comment, which led up to this comment.

The two just don't marry. Maybe it's just me.

best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Too Much Or Too Little

"too much or too little"

Certainly a cryptic comment. Might it be a paraphrase along the lines of:
"I indicated that the killer was a Jewish man, but I didn't give any evidence in support of that belief. On reflection, I should either had supported the accusation with evidence or simply left it unsaid".

That is wholly speculative, but submitted in response to the "Any thoughts?" question. I concede that I could be well wide of the mark.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Saying too much or too little

Thereagain there's a school of thought which suggests Anderson was simply paying the price for being such a pr***teaser - either he should've come up with the full goods, evidence and all, or kept his trap shut...

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Thereagain there's a school of thought which suggests Anderson was simply paying the price for being such a pr***teaser - either he should've come up with the full goods, evidence and all, or kept his trap shut...

Dave

Hello Dave,

And then there's the school of thought that he was trying to make a name for himself in his old age, selling books and b#llsh#tting with fairy tales.

Doesn't seem that many agreed with the poor old b#gger.

Even today. Whoops...that slipped out.

best wishes

Phil