Did Anderson Know

[DVV]

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

Hi Stephen,

denying the - or "his" - failure, I think.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Stephen,

denying the - or "his" - failure, I think.

Amitiés,
David

That seems obvious to me,since he makes this claim in his 1910 autobiography-as well as Blackwoods magazine a little earlier, and the Whitechapel murders are allocated just a few paragraphs. The entire book seems to be devoted to him boasting about how he ,sort of single handedly, scotched every Fenian plot that was ever hatched.

It is clear from the book,Stephen, that for Anderson to have admitted failure in catching the ripper would have meant admitting to a blot on his otherwise "golden " career .
Best
Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I see only three possibilities regarding Anderson's knowledge of the the truth about the Whitechapel murderer.

[a] He did know, but [for whatever reason] pointed the finger at a Polish Jew we can only assume to have been Kosminski.

[b] He didn't know, but [for whatever reason] didn't want to be seen to not know and so pointed the finger at a Polish Jew we can only assume to have been Kosminski.

[c] He did know, but [for whatever reason] rather than reveal the truth about the Whitechapel murderer pointed the finger at a Polish Jew we can only assume to have been Kosminski.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Well Simon, I tend to think Anderson was quite affected by the years and years he had experienced not letting his right hand know what his left was doing.When it came to 1910 he seems to have lost it.We have him standing on his doorstep addressing a huge crowd of journalists who he had summoned to an outdoor press conference in order to spill the beans to all and sundry about how he had lied his head off in the year 1887---presumably for queen and country .But his confessions drew much criticism and concern in the Houses of Parliament.To me this suggests Anderson had lost touch with reality to a fairly significant extent.
As a Christian Fundamentalist he may even have believed he had had "promptings"about who Jack the Ripper was from Above .
But he appears to me to have been acting in bad faith with regards to his "low class Polish Jew" theory and fitting a half baked theory he had over a mentally ill man in Whitechapel who had been taken to a lunatic asylum.If it was Aaron Kosminski he was talking about, then this man lived out his days there for nearly thirty years without a single doctor recording he was anything more troublesome than a harmless inmate who didnt like work.

Norma

[Stephen Thomas]

So no-one wants to answer my VERY SIMPLE QUESTION.

Quelle suprise.

[Chris]

So no-one wants to answer my VERY SIMPLE QUESTION.

Quelle suprise.

Surely DVV's post provided a very simple answer to your question?

[Sox]

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

Information moves up in the police force, orders move down. That Anderson & Swanson knew the identity of Jack the Ripper, while all of their junior officers were totally ignorant of the fact, is in my opinion, the stuff of fairy tales.

[DVV]

I'm afraid you're wasting your time, Sox.
Pirate will certainly reply by another fairy tale, ie: that Betsy went directly to Anderson or Swanson.
He did so some pages earlier, at least.

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sox,

That's not strictly true. It all depends at which level information is first dealt with. For example, Matthew Packer's story was handled personally by AC Alexander Carmichael Bruce, and the fact of their meeting did not trickle downwards into Swanson's report.

Compartmentalization.

Regards,

Simon

[Stephen Thomas]

Surely DVV's post provided a very simple answer to your question?

No, it didn't in any shape or form.

Seriously consider the question asked, dear boy.

And respond accordingly.

I wanted a sincere response to my valid question.

Not some kneejerk crap.

[DVV]

I guess as long as I won't smell a cover-up, you'll consider I'm not sincere, Stephen...
Well, I'm sorry, but right or wrong, that's sincerely what I think.

Amitiés,
David

[Chris]

No, it didn't in any shape or form.

Seriously consider the question asked, dear boy.

And respond accordingly.

I wanted a sincere response to my valid question.

Not some kneejerk crap.

Of course I did consider the question asked, and the answer given, and I'm still of the opinion it was perfectly reasonable. I realise that for a number of people here the only answer to any question that will ever really satisfy is "Conspiracy!". But the rest of are going to want something in the way of rational argument.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

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

See post #423 [b] or [c].

Regards,

Simon

[Sox]

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

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

I am no Anderson expert Stephen, but I would suggest exactly the same thing Norma does...reputation. He had an ego wider than the Thames, he had two very distinct blots on his copybook, one of which was the Whitechapel murders. It is not unusual for retired policemen to write in defence of failed investigations that they were involved in, but it is rare for one to come out and claim that such a high profile failure was actually a success.

We also have the leisure of hindsight Stephen, I cannot imagine that when Anderson said and wrote these things, that he believed people would still be discussing them over 100 years later. We are mere mortals, and while we often hope that we will be remembered beyond our lifetime, we rarely truely believe that we will.

Lying is, perhaps, a harsh word to apply. More like twisting the facts to suit his version maybe?

[DVV]

"Ascertained fact" is an ascertained lie, imo.

Amitiés,
David