Did Anderson Know

[robhouse]

"Thanks for your reply Rob.
You say none of this is in the least confusing but actually Anderson"s criterion for "moral proof" is very idiosyncratic. Its as though he is some kind of legal magician who can,simply by by staring hard at someone, eyeball to eyeball in his private office, discover their guilt from their trembling , sweating and falling in a faint."

Hi Natalie,

Well, you are referring to the incident Anderson describes in another case where he came to a conclusion about a suspect's guilt based on his reaction to being told there was hard evidence against him. Again, it is not known what the police knew about Kozminski, or why Anderson came to the conclusion he did. You cannot just assume it is for the reason you are implying. This may have been the reason, or it may have factored into Anderson's conclusion along with other facts. We simply do not know.

"I am sure someone will correct me if i am wrong here but isnt it a fact that Kosminski didnt come to the notice of the police until 1889. For the incident involving his sister.

If that is correct then the police would not have been watching him or his brothers house in 1888."

Hello Trevor.

It is certainly not "a fact that Kosminski didnt come to the notice of the police until 1889." It is possible he didn't, but it is not a fact. There are a few vague "clues" that might give us some hints about when it might have been, but it is not known for sure. It might have been as early as 1888, it might have been 1889 or 1890. It was apparently before Feb 1891. I personally believe that it is likely Kozminski came to the attention of the police earlier than has been generally supposed... but it is all a gray area.

Rob H

[Phil Carter]

....He seems to have been the only police officer who was honest about the whole Ripper investigation.

All of the others had ulterior motives for suggesting various people as suspects

Hello Trevor,

Straight talk. Like it. Carry on that man!

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

For once I agree with you Major Smith is pivotal to the whole argument. He seems to have been the only police officer who was honest about the whole Ripper investigation.

All of the others had ulterior motives for suggesting various people as suspects

Oh please get real. What planet are you guys on.

This thread has again descended into fantacy.

Major Smith was nothing of the sort

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Anderson defended his reputation right to the bitter end.

The Lighter Side Of My Official Life, page 281—

"I retired when I did for the excellent reason that after forty busy years I felt a strong desire for a more restful life. And, moreover, I had nothing to gain by remaining longer in office."

The perfect end to the perfect career.



Whereas, in fact, in February 1901 Anderson was sacked/fired/let go/asked to resign as Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, CID.

He kept that one quiet.

Regards,

Simon

Now that I did not know Simon! Hmmn------very interesting indeed.Many Thanks,
Best
Norma

[Trevor Marriott]

I think we're on the same page too, on this one, Trevor. We also ageed about the profiling aspect as well, so I would venture that we agree more than disagree about much about this case.

Well thats nice to know we are bonding and forming stronger Anglo American ties

[Hunter]

I think we're on the same page too, on this one, Trevor. We also ageed about the profiling aspect as well, so I would venture that we agree more than disagree about much about this case.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is an excellent point Trevor, and with Anderson we don't know what is conjecture or "ascertained facts". The mention, however, of the City CID survelance comes from Swanson and as I've stated, if it indeed happened, then Major Smith would have known about it.

For once I agree with you Major Smith is pivotal to the whole argument. He seems to have been the only police officer who was honest about the whole Ripper investigation.

All of the others had ulterior motives for suggesting various people as suspects

[Hunter]

I am sure someone will correct me if i am wrong here but isnt it a fact that Kosminski didnt come to the notice of the police until 1889. For the incident involving his sister.

If that is correct then the police would not have been watching him or his brothers house in 1888.

That is an excellent point Trevor, and with Anderson we don't know what is conjecture or "ascertained facts". The mention, however, of the City CID survelance comes from Swanson and as I've stated, if it indeed happened, then Major Smith would have known about it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes indeed....but will you ever get a straight answer to your question? I doubt it Trevor.Its always a riddle within a riddle somehow.

Seems some want to argue for the sake of arguing

[Natalie Severn]

Yes indeed....but will you ever get a straight answer to your question? I doubt it Trevor.Its always a riddle within a riddle somehow.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good point Trev.
Best Norma

I do have some use on here !

[Natalie Severn]

Good point Trev.
Best Norma

[Phil Carter]

Hello Hunter,

The comment I gave is made up of fact. Either he knew and never produced proof, or he didnt know, or he may have known, still without producing proof.
That is as far as it goes. All else is supposition, guesswork and interpretation.
He admitted himself to have bended the law, he has been shown to be careful with the truth and he was a spymaster.

No supposition, no opinion based on non or proper analysis of information at hand. All there, in black and white.

Edit..

Norma hahahhaha nice one! ...:- Anderson... innocent as a new-born lamb eh?...baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh... (humbug)

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I am sure someone will correct me if i am wrong here but isnt it a fact that Kosminski didnt come to the notice of the police until 1889. For the incident involving his sister.

If that is correct then the police would not have been watching him or his brothers house in 1888.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for your reply Rob.
You say none of this is in the least confusing but actually Anderson"s criterion for "moral proof" is very idiosyncratic.Its as though he is some kind of legal magician who can,simply by by staring hard at someone, eyeball to eyeball in his private office, discover their guilt from their trembling , sweating and falling in a faint.
But surely 99% of the population would fall in a dead heap when Anderson fixed his mad eyed beam on them?