Did Anderson Know

[Sox]

If we found a newspaper report that said Anderson thought the killer had links to London Zoo....would we start looking for a Lion as the killer?

Actually we probably would.

[Phil Carter]

Sox,

It was bad enough seeing Sooty suggested in Sugden's volume of work...and now Lenny the Lion? Is nothing sacred? LOL hahahaha

best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

Hi Natalie,

Well, again, I asked a specific question regarding a police "cover-up"... in other words, I was wondering:

IF the police thought they knew the Ripper's identity but couldn't prosecute... would they have tried to keep this information secret. Of course I am referring to Anderson, Swanson etc.

But my question was rather specific... you responded merely by pointing out the usual criticisms of Anderson.. he was unreliable, boastful... Abberline... Smith etc.

Fine. OK. That is a separate question. I proposed a hypothetical question, which was not answered.

Rob

[Natalie Severn]

The answer Rob is that I dont believe for one second that such information would not have been loudly whispered all over Fleet Street! Anyone who knew the identity of Jack the Ripper ,be that Anderson,Macnaghten,Smith ,Abberline you name them, would NOT have wanted to keep such a secret to himself and would have been only too happy to broadcast that knowledge and,ofcourse ,flatly denied it was them who had broadcasted it!
Best
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

Surely that is a miss understanding of the culture of the time. I’m happy for anyone to correct me, but surely NOT revealing information was part of the job at that time. It may not be so today. But we live in very different times?

Pirate

Ps I’m back (grown) but on best behavior Norma. xx

[Natalie Severn]

Oh do get off Jeff! Anderson"s job as a spymaster entailed the giving out of "disinformation" and he did exactly that for many many years! Moreover it was because he kept spouting off in public,calling press conferences and even requesting he could discuss more of his secret service work ,that those MP"s in the House of Commons like Winston Churchill grew so alarmed.They had been livid when he told the press for example that it was he who had written the anti Parnell articles in The Times inventing stuff about Parnell"s complicity in the Phoenix Park murders etc.
Good to see you back Jeff,
Take Care
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

You have a perfectly valid point, good to be back.

Catch you on the 6th hopefully,

Yours Jeff Leahy/Parnell

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson

To obtain a true idea of what Anderson was like might be quite difficult for the average student the Whitechapel murders case.

In Ripper circles writers appear, prima facie, to be either 'pro-Anderson' or 'anti-Anderson', depending upon their own theories and interpretation of the historical datum available. It often appears to be a case of 'you either like him or you don't'. The views often lack objectivity and even drawing upon historical sources the same problem is encountered. The truth, in all probability, lies somewhere between the two extremes. This does not make things any easier for the uninformed reader who is relying upon the text of his chosen author to enlighten him. Anderson is an important and very interesting character - in many ways typical of the official hierarchy of his time.

He was a prolific writer himself, which is fortunate for us as we also have that material to draw upon. In his time he attracted much criticism and, at the same time, praise from some of his close colleagues and friends. As a fundamentalist Christian his views were very fixed, even to the degree of being a bigot; he was also boastful and a name dropper. Add to this the fact that he moved in the circles of the Home Office and Police hierarchy, personal survival and scheming were to the fore, one has to say that he held his own for many years.

His security in the early years at the Home Office, from 1867, was probably ensured by the fact that he had the great fortune to enlist a Fenian informer, 'Henri le Caron', to whom he had sole, and secret, access. In the wider picture of his anti-Fenian duties he does not appear to have been particularly effective. It was 'le Caron' and the information he supplied that ensured Anderson's place at the Home Office.

Apart from the glitch of the imported 'spymaster' Edward Jenkinson, whose arrival at the Home Office in 1883 marked a few years of uncertainty for Anderson (who still retained sole control of le Caron, his personal 'insurance'). The secret service work in which they were engaged was not short on 'dirty tricks' and Anderson was a survivor if nothing else. At the beginning of 1887 Jenkinson went. Officially he 'resigned' but his position had been made untenable - he had made too many enemies in the police hierarchy. Monro took on the role as head of the secret service (as well as being Assistant Commissioner Crime) and brought Anderson in out of the cold. As we know, Anderson joined the Metropolitan Police as Assistant Commissioner (Crime) when Monro resigned the post in August 1888.

Anderson has been described as 'inept' at his secret duties and the system was expensive and 'by no means free from traces of the Agent Provocateur.' Anderson's underhandedness was also revealed in his involvement with the series of articles in The Times in 1887 'Parnellism and Crime: Behind the Scenes in America'. This was unorthodox and against civil service rules. One respected modern historian (the academic historian Bernard Porter) is very dismissive of Anderson highlighting the general view of Anderson's ineptitude and even commenting "Anderson was wrong, as he usually was..." That may be a bit harsh, but it is the considered view of a trained historian who has studied Anderson.

Anderson even admitted himself, in 1898, that the Special Branch sometimes broke the rules - and he condoned it. After all, results served to justify the means and brought 'kudos' with improved detection rates. Porter drew the conclusion that 'the security services in the 1890s and 1900s, despite the ridiculous Anderson, were as effective as they needed to be.' Perhaps, as I say, a trifle harsh, but certainly food for thought.

[Natalie Severn]

Hello Stewart,
I have tried to get this book by Bernard Porter from the library and its virtually impossible.There are a few copies out there but it costs over £10 even to try to get hold of one through their outreach system.Any suggestions?
Best
Norma

[Sox]

Personally I think Anderson was very much a man of his time, and proof that a decent secret serviceman does not necessarily make a good policeman, no matter what the era.

I do not think that many of the senior officers could be taken to task for their involvement in the events of that autumn, but he is certainly one of them. His later comments are, without doubt, open to question. My major problem with the man is this.

He is asking me to believe that he knew who Jack the Ripper was, I am asked to believe that Swanson knew too. Neither of these men were involved to any great extent with the investigation at ground level, so exactly how did these two gentlemen come to know who this killer was, when their junior officers, the men on the ground, had no idea as to his identity?

That, is stretching the imagination too far for me, no matter what the mans reputation.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Sox

Swanson had over all responsibility for the investigation.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Sox

Swanson had over all responsibility for the investigation.

Pirate

But Anderson was in charge of it Pirate,--- in its over all sense ----which is why the Home Secretary at the time,Matthews,reprimanded him when he was still away from his London desk at the beginning of October 1888,making it over a month that he had been absent from duty.Anderson left England "to take rest" just after Polly Nichols was found murdered ie the very first day Anderson took up his new and very senior post.Meanwhile Jack the Ripper went on with his reign of terror and was still murdering women in the streets,the latest being Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes. on September 30th .
Anderson was still in Paris during the first week of October.
Best
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Norma

I was responding to the suggestion that Swanson was not involved with the case at ground level. He was.

Incidently Warren requested Anderson went on leave before taking the post, for reasons not connected to the ripper case.

We dont know whether or not Anderson attended the 'suggested' identity parade. Given his words, if it did take place, its quite possible that he did.

We don't know for certain.

Pirate

[Stephen Thomas]

This is a sincere question and I would appreciate a sincere answer.

If Anderson was lying, what might have been his motivation?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Warren wrote to Anderson from France on 28th August 1888, saying that he expected to be back in London on about 7th September and saw "no reason why" Anderson "should not be able to go on leave a day or two after . . ."

As Anderson left for Switzerland on 8th September, it would seem that neither man was attaching much importance to the murders of Nichols and Chapman.

Regards,

Simon