Did Anderson Know

[Chris]

Here's a clue. In #6 there's no mention of the suspect being caged in an asylum.

There's no mention about that either way. It's scarcely an inconsistency. And of course Anderson had been saying from 1895 onwards that he thought the Ripper had been put in an asylum.

On the Broadmoor question, there's no contradiction between the 1908 statement that there wasn't enough evidence to send him to Broadmoor, and the other statements that he was committed to an asylum. Sending him to Broadmoor would have required sufficient evidence for him to be charged with a criminal offence (or else, perhaps, to justify direct action by a Secretary of State).

[Natalie Severn]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=506

And if Anderson had genuine reason to suspect Kosminski was protected by his family because he was approached by Aaron's Sister? Would that alter your view on Anderson Norma?

Pirate

Afraid not Jeff.I would give much greater credence to a] the absence of any actual recorded crimes of violence or any police record of violent behaviour or b] the fact that medical staff who assessed him at Colney Hatch and Leavesdon wrote in his admission notes that he was "harmless" and "not a danger to others" .
His sister could also have had mental health problems of a delusionary nature like Aaron Kosminski himself did.
The only time he appeared in a court of law was when he had failed to comply with the law as it wasthen and put a muzzle on the dog he was walking in Cheapside in November 1889.

[Chris]

I hardly see how the two quotes you copied above constitute "a blistering attack on what Anderson said about his Polish Jew." It seems that Henry Smith's main objection to what Anderson wrote was similar to Mentor's... In other words, Smith interpreted Anderson's words as meaning that the killer was shielded by the Jews as a whole. This is clearly not what Anderson meant.

Yes. In the part of Smith's memoirs written in response to Anderson's memoirs - rather than the part written before he had seen Anderson's memoirs - there is actually nothing directly concerning the identity of the murderer.

There is criticism of the notion that the murderer was sheltered by "his people", which as you say is based on a misinterpretation of what Anderson meant. I think he clearly meant the people the murderer was living with, not the wider Jewish community.

And then there is criticism of the decision to erase the Goulston Street writing, and the opinion that it was designed to mislead the police into suspecting that the murderer was Jewish.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Nothing inconsistent? As a wannabe author about to fit-up Aaron Kosminski for crimes he didn't commit, you should know that "disparate" means "essentially different in kind; not allowing for comparison".

Here's a clue. In #6 there's no mention of the suspect being caged in an asylum.

And whilst we're at it, demonstrate to me that #5 "comes from some other source than Anderson" and I'll buy a copy of your book.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Simon,

How are these six disparate accounts? There is nothing at all inconsistent in quotes #1-4 and 6. Moreover, your point #5 comes from some other source than Anderson... despite your writing an article based on the erroneous assumption that it did, and wishing it to be so.

Rob H

[Jeff Leahy]

Unfortunately I cant provide a direct link to the Crawford letter.

The above link takes you to a discussion that considers that it may have been connected to Druitt.

In the podcast on Kosminski Rob House makes the interesting observation that we do not know the origin of this letter..

However Anderson was clearly introduced to someone who felt they knew the identity of Jack the Ripper.

Rob House has speculated a link between Crawford and the Kosminski family via Sweat shops?

So the horses mouth would be Aarons Sister. The person he attacked with a knife?

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Not if Anderson's information came from the horses mouth.

Pirate

The horses mouth being? Oh No! Not The Swanson paraphernalia again!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

And which particular horse's mouth would that be?

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Jason,
I have the impression that Smith was rather an urbane ,dilettante character.He probably found Robert Anderson"s passionate intensity a bit " uncool " !
Cheers
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

Did Anderson know [the identity of JtR]? 562 posts later we may just have the answer.

1. Cassell’s Saturday Journal, 11th June 1892—"It is impossible to believe they [the Whitechapel murders] were the work of a sane man—they were those of a maniac revelling in blood".

Within three years the maniac was committed—

2. Windsor Magazine, 1895 [Anderson, as reported by Major Griffiths]—"Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum”.

But thirteen years later there wasn't enough evidence to commit him—

3. Criminals and Crime—A Rejoinder, 1908—" . . . the author of those murders was a lunatic, and if evidence had been available to bring him to justice he would have been sent to Broadmoor.”

Within another two years it was found that there had been enough evidence after all—

4. Blackwood's Magazine, 1st March 1910—" . . . he and his people were low-class Jews . . . [He] was caged in an asylum . . ."

And so much so that three weeks later there was enough evidence to send him to Broadmoor at least three years before there hadn't been enough evidence to send him to Broadmoor—

5. New York Times, 20th March 1910—[He] "was an alien of the lower, though educated class, hailing from Poland . . . [He] was consigned to Broadmoor . . . five or six years ago [1904/1905]."

But towards the end of 1910 it seems that he hadn't been sent to any asylum—

6. TLSOMOL Autumn 1910—" . . . he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."

Six disparate accounts. Anderson's "evidence" was worthless. He needed a serious reality check.

Regards,

Simon

Not if Anderson's information came from the horses mouth.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Did Anderson know [the identity of JtR]? 562 posts later we may just have the answer.

1. Cassell’s Saturday Journal, 11th June 1892—"It is impossible to believe they [the Whitechapel murders] were the work of a sane man—they were those of a maniac revelling in blood".

Within three years the maniac was committed—

2. Windsor Magazine, 1895 [Anderson, as reported by Major Griffiths]—"Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum”.

But thirteen years later there wasn't enough evidence to commit him—

3. Criminals and Crime—A Rejoinder, 1908—" . . . the author of those murders was a lunatic, and if evidence had been available to bring him to justice he would have been sent to Broadmoor.”

Within another two years it was found that there had been enough evidence after all—

4. Blackwood's Magazine, 1st March 1910—" . . . he and his people were low-class Jews . . . [He] was caged in an asylum . . ."

And so much so that three weeks later there was enough evidence to send him to Broadmoor at least three years before there hadn't been enough evidence to send him to Broadmoor—

5. New York Times, 20th March 1910—[He] "was an alien of the lower, though educated class, hailing from Poland . . . [He] was consigned to Broadmoor . . . five or six years ago [1904/1905]."

But towards the end of 1910 it seems that he hadn't been sent to any asylum—

6. TLSOMOL Autumn 1910—" . . . he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews . . . . . . . . . . . . . ."

Six disparate accounts. Anderson's "evidence" was worthless. He needed a serious reality check.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=506

And if Anderson had genuine reason to suspect Kosminski was protected by his family because he was approached by Aaron's Sister? Would that alter your view on Anderson Norma?

Pirate

[robhouse]

Natalie,

I hardly see how the two quotes you copied above constitute "a blistering attack on what Anderson said about his Polish Jew." It seems that Henry Smith's main objection to what Anderson wrote was similar to Mentor's... In other words, Smith interpreted Anderson's words as meaning that the killer was shielded by the Jews as a whole. This is clearly not what Anderson meant.

viz. Smith's statement "The criminal, no doubt, was valeted by his co-religionists -warned not to run too great risks, to come home as soon as he could after business, and always to give notice when he meant to cut up another lady!"

Clearly Anderson was deeply pained that his words might be misinterpreted in this way, as a slur on the Jews in general. Hence the changes in his book. As he states, the Jews had lapsed masses (i.e. a criminal element) the same as the gentiles did.

You characterize this as "Anderson trying to hastily cover his tracks"... as if Anderson was backpedaling. He did quite the opposite, since he said even more forcefully in the book version that the Ripper was Jewish. But he did clarify his statements for the reasons he noted in in his letter to the Jewish Chronicle etc... I do not see why you think this is so nefarious.

RH

[jason_c]

Smith has a bee in his bonnet about Anderson and Jews.

"Surely Sir Robert cannot believe that while the Jews, as he asserts, were entering into this conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice, there was no one among them with sufficient knowledge of the criminal law to warn them of the risks they were running...................Sir Robert talks of the "Lighter Side" of his Official Life." There is nothing "light" here ; a heavier indictment could not be framed against a class whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of the Metropolis."

No mention by Smith of Polish Jews, or low class Polish Jews. Theres no distinction between race, class and country of origin in Smith's comments on Anderson's Jewish theory. Anderson is at least "nuanced" in comparison.

[Natalie Severn]

Look at the Introduction to H.L. Adam's The Trial of George Chapman. You will see that Henry Smith, along with Anderson, is listed as among those who thought they knew the identity of the Ripper. Mind you, this was written some years after 1910, when the two men may have shared further information.

Yes,I found the bit where this is written.But actually all this may amount to is some rough looking chap who Smith says contacted him and who he thought might be the ripper .He describes him in detail-andyou start to think"Yeah,pull the other its got bells on".No I dont believe him over this . Wishful thinking again, this time on Smith"s part.To be fair to him he states quite clearly in his autobiography of 1910 that the ripper had them all completely beat.I dont know of any source that says he changed his mind on this,as I stated earlier.

Best

Norma