Did Anderson Know

[Trevor Marriott]

Anderson seems to have been a very honourable man. If he was less than convinced about a "definitely ascertained fact", would he not have been more likely to have said something along the lines of, "very strong suspicions"?

Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that he was wrong. But an out and out liar?

Regards,

Steve.

You only have to look at his shenanigens with regards to The Phoenix park murders. Is that the character of a man with integrity, honest and trustworthy. i think not. He has certainly been proved to be a liar in the past before 1888. So why not after then.?

[Steven Russell]

I will. Thanks, Trevor.

Regards,

Steve.

[The Grave Maurice]

Does anyone know if Alan Sharp is still working on his biography of Anderson? That might shed some new light on the guy.

[Jeff Leahy]

Unfortunately for Martin he sometimes gets things dismally wrong - just like us lesser, unscholarly, mortals.

ah yes join the club...

My old boss used to define an expert as anyone willing to sign a release form for less than a hundred quid, who had read at least one book on the subject Not that I ever agreed with much that he had to say apart from his advice about NATSOT.

But you and Trevor will be pleased to know that in the interest of 'balance' I put the same question to Begg..

And he also replied that he did not know the answer.

So all in all its been a very productive afternoon

Pirate

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=Phil Carter;127837]Anderson, .....has a KNOWN flawed character, and his writings, epitomised by the 1910 book effort, shows an ego trip in spades.

Anderson never had a jot of proof for his comment about the true identity of JTR. And THAT, shows a flawed character itself... a policeman of VERY high rank..WITHOUT evidence of proof.. labelling a man of being the worst serial murderer ever seen? Without a jot of proof?

The man regards himself above the law (by his own admittance) and we are asked to believe this man's comments as RELIABLE?
/QUOTE]

Steven,

Respectfully, how can this man be regarded as "a very honourable man"? Calling Kosminski Jack the Ripper without proof is not a sign of a man of honour, is it?

All in "the traditions of his old department" of course...

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

This raises a few questions and, as far as it goes, is in line with Anderson's claims of 1895 and 1901, and Griffiths' text of 1898, with which Sagar, or the reporter (as it is not at all clear that Sagar is being quoted), may have been agreeing.

But the final account starting "Much has been said and written...", see attached, reads as a press add-on about the murders in journalistic style. Its content, as I said, ties in with the then published writings of Anderson and Griffiths and does not appear to be an account of Sagar's.

I find it very difficult to believe that it didn't come from Sagar, especially considering the other reports we have that he suspected a man who was described in similar terms.

But really the point I'm making is that there must have been many surveillance operations in 1888 and beyond, most of which aren't recorded in the surviving files. Come to think of it, are any of them recorded in the files?

[Steven Russell]

Phil,

Respectfully, while others have cast aspersions (rightly or wrongly) on Anderson's character, he never really named Kosminski, did he?

Regards,

Steve.

[Stewart P Evans]

Surveillance

I find it very difficult to believe that it didn't come from Sagar, especially considering the other reports we have that he suspected a man who was described in similar terms.
But really the point I'm making is that there must have been many surveillance operations in 1888 and beyond, most of which aren't recorded in the surviving files. Come to think of it, are any of them recorded in the files?

Au contraire, I think it very likely is newspaper filling by the reporter.

There must have been dozens of surveillance operations that were recorded at the time, of course, but for which the paperwork has long since disappeared. But the point here is that we are talking of an allegedly leading suspect and one who was positively identified to boot, by a witness (which identification the witness refused to swear to). Not only that he was incarcerated in February 1891 shortly after said identification. I have no doubt that there was paperwork on him post 1889, and, as I said, I favour 1890 for him being brought to specific notice.

Remember it is claimed that this suspect was known to the police to be the Whitechapel murderer - yet there is no official mention whatsoever other than Macnaghten's report of 1894.

[Stewart P Evans]

Aspersions?

Phil,
Respectfully, while others have cast aspersions (rightly or wrongly) on Anderson's character, he never really named Kosminski, did he?
Regards,
Steve.

It's not a case of casting aspersions - contemporary evidence aplenty has been produced from which you may draw your own conclusions (you cannot expect others to do that for you) and it is simplistic to state 'he was an honourable man', which can mean several things.

No he did not name Kosminski but if you read the published sources that analyse what he did say and present all the evidence you will see that Anderson's 'Polish Jew' is almost certainly Macnaghten's 'Kosminski, and almost as certainly is Aaron Kosminski. But all this is old information.

Have you read the standard books such as the A-Z and Sugden? There will soon (July) be a new edition of the A-Z and I thoroughly recommend it; it should answer your questions.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Steven,

Thank you for your reply.
Again, with respect, it isn't very honourable to label any person, or any person of any particluar ethnic background the "Whitechapel murderer" without proof, especially one of so high rank within the police force....
The supposed "marginalia by Swanson" doesn't make that writer too honourable either! It compounds it...because there is still NO PROOF against this man.
Those acts are, imho, not one could attribute to any "very honourable person", especially high ranking policemen!

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Au contraire, I think it very likely is newspaper filling by the reporter.

I think we'll have to agree to differ about that.

There must have been dozens of surveillance operations that were recorded at the time, of course, but for which the paperwork has long since disappeared. But the point here is that we are talking of an allegedly leading suspect and one who was positively identified to boot, by a witness (which identification the witness refused to swear to). Not only that he was incarcerated in February 1891 shortly after said identification. I have no doubt that there was paperwork on him post 1889, and, as I said, I favour 1890 for him being brought to specific notice.

Remember it is claimed that this suspect was known to the police to be the Whitechapel murderer - yet there is no official mention whatsoever other than Macnaghten's report of 1894.

But surely we have to draw a distinction between what was claimed about him a decade or more later on the one hand, and what actually happened on the other. After all, both of us take the claims about his guilt and the alleged identification with a hefty dose of salt (though I do believe there was an attempt to identify him).

Surely the conclusion to be drawn is simply that he wasn't known to be the murderer, not that he was investigated later rather than earlier?

[Stewart P Evans]

Differ

...
But surely we have to draw a distinction between what was claimed about him a decade or more later on the one hand, and what actually happened on the other. After all, both of us take the claims about his guilt and the alleged identification with a hefty dose of salt (though I do believe there was an attempt to identify him).
Surely the conclusion to be drawn is simply that he wasn't known to be the murderer, not that he was investigated later rather than earlier?

Yes, we'll have to differ.

[Steven Russell]

Dear Phil,
I take your point with regard to Anderson. His comments do seem to have been a bit naughty. Swanson's, on the other hand, cannot be subjected to the same criticism as they were private notes and therefore not intended for publication.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[Natalie Severn]

Anderson seems to have been a very honourable man. If he was less than convinced about a "definitely ascertained fact", would he not have been more likely to have said something along the lines of, "very strong suspicions"?

Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that he was wrong. But an out and out liar?

Regards,

Steve.

Anderson"s main commitment was to his role as "spymaster" .
One of a spymaster"s tasks is to "disinform".Another term for "disinformation" is "telling a pack of lies " .Anderson spent many years giving out "disinformation " of one kind or another .Indeed some thought he had done so much [B]"disinforming" that he no longer knew his right hand from his left----or his arse from his elbow----- because he had spent so much time at it .Winston Churchill was someone who was so sick and tired of his boasting and "disinforming " that he began calling them Anderson"s Fairy tales . I have always found that to be quite revealing and instructive.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Steven,

I take your point too about the marginalia not being meant for publication, fair comment.

best wishes

Phil