Did Anderson Know

[Sox]

"Ascertained fact" is an ascertained lie, imo.

Amitiés,
David

Taken out of context then yes, I agree it is. However, when viewed in context with everything else he wrote/said on the case then he appears to be twisting a story to fit a theory......not unlike one or two Ripperologists have done down the years And while , strictly speaking, still lies, it becomes more understandable with regard to Anderson the man.

[DVV]

That's very well said.

Amitiés,
David

[Scott Nelson]

No it isn't.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Kindly refrain from being so loquacious. You're making it hard to keep up.

Moving on—

If the answer to my post #423 is [a], then why did Anderson not name his suspect and in doing so put an end to 22-years of speculation? Identifying JtR as an anonymous Polish Jew caused Anderson more than enough trouble, so why would actually naming him have exacerbated the situation?

The answer is in the question.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Actually Simon it caused him surprisingly little trouble. It was his articles on Parnell, which he was probably innocent of if I remember correctly, that got him into trouble and caused an out cry.

The fact of the matter is its fairly surprising that if he did make up his 'ascertain fact' then it wasnt challenged with any greater vigor.

As for his supposed 'ineptitude' as a spy master, again there is NO evidence for this. His successor Gosselin failed in equal measure as would most in Ireland for generations to come.

We again and again here criticism of Anderson on this thread without any supported evidence or twisted half truths. The only person who takes it seriously is SPE who at least recognizes the complicated nature of Anderson's character and try's to place him in some historical context.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Actually Simon it caused him surprisingly little trouble. It was his articles on Parnell, which he was probably innocent of if I remember correctly, that got him into trouble and caused an out cry.

The fact of the matter is its fairly surprising that if he did make up his 'ascertain fact' then it wasnt challenged with any greater vigor.

As for his supposed 'ineptitude' as a spy master, again there is NO evidence for this. His successor Gosselin failed in equal measure as would most in Ireland for generations to come.

We again and again here criticism of Anderson on this thread without any supported evidence or twisted half truths. The only person who takes it seriously is SPE who at least recognizes the complicated nature of Anderson's character and try's to place him in some historical context.

Pirate

Hi Pirate,
No need to be disingenuous here Pirate.In April 1910 Anderson CONFESSED to the World"s press ,to lying over what he had said in the 1887 articles in "The Times"

-ie the 1887 Times articles on "Parnellism and Crime"


Just as Pigott did admit to forging the letters concurrently printed in " The Times" that he himself wrote but alleged to have come from the Irish Home Rule MP Parnell.It cost Pigott his life,for he committed suicide very soon after , early in 1889.
Why not look it up in some of the contemporary accounts?It caused a huge scandal at the time and was discussed all over Parliament.
The string of articles for "The Times" newspaper was called "Behind the Scenes in America" and it branded the MP Parnell and his democratically elected party of Irish MP"s sitting in Westminster , fellow travellers in terror.
Dont obfuscate this please, Jeff. Its historical information that pertains to Anderson"s willingness to "invent".Its also a well know political ploy meaning that [in Anderson"s undoubted view] the "means" justified the "ends"---in Anderson"s case this meant his willingness to lie to defeat Parnell and Irish Home Rule and the Defence of the Union "by any means necessary"---and he admitted it ---for crying out loud!
Thats why the Special Commission of 1888/89 ,called by the government ever took place.And the outcome was that Parnell was awarded damages with The Times paying the ruinous costs for The Special Commission - the legal costs of this Special Commission amounted to almost £250,000-the equivalent of £12 million today.

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Hi Simon

Or (d) He did know and was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, though without naming names of course.

Thanks Norma

I understand and respect your take on this but personally I can't see why such a powerful and eminent person with responsibility for, as they say now, homeland security would want to big himself up as regards to a squalid murder case when he could more easily have gone down the Macnaghton 'me know nothing' route.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Norma

I have a pile of work to get on with today. The following is taken from my notes on the subject and questions asked of a dear freind:

In the1887 copy of “Parnellism and Crime: Behind the Scenes in America”, Anderson relates, largely based on newspaper reports and, as we now know, private papers belonging to Henri Le Caron, how various pro-Irish organisations developed in America, some espousing violent, other not, and how an organisation called the United Brotherhood brought them together on one platform and espoused loyalty to the aims and practices of Charles Stewart Parnell and to which Charles Stewart Parnell had publicly allied himself. It was pointed out strongly that behind the UB and doing the string-pulling were pro-terrorism Fenians who, while promoting the peaceful Parliamentary campaign for Home Rule championed by Parnell were also funding terrorist activity in Britain, including the organisation of a ‘pyrotechnic display’ to celebrate the Queen Victoria’s Jubilee. Throughout the articles the overriding question – though not asked directly – is the extent to which Parnell and Home Rule MP’s knew about and supported the criminal activities of their American allies. And that, of course, is the over-riding question still asked and uncertainly answered today.

As Prof Lyons has observed in his biography of Parnell, Parnell needed the financial and morel support of all the Home Rule organisations in America and could do nothing to alienate them, and for the most part his language was so carefully worded as to neither give nor deny his support to anyone, but to allow a meaning to be inferred. Whilst thus appearing to give support to those who chose to read his words as supporting them, Parnell was equally able to say to those who opposed him that they had misinterpreted what he was saying (and perhaps winking at the first group to suggest that of course he supported them but had been clever enough to phrase his words in such a way as to deny to and deflate his critics and perhaps leave them charged with deliberately misinterpreting his words in an underhand campaign to undermine him). This may well have been an understandable political expediency and those who wish to believe that Parnell’s almost clandestine support of the terrorists was intended to keep them sweet and did not reflect his real and true feelings may with hindsight be able to point to Parnell’s career overall and support that belief, but I’m not sure that this is in fact a correct interpretation of Parnell or an interpretation which the likes of Anderson or the anti-Home Rule politicians of the day could have safely reached. And whether or not Parnell actively supported terrorism and crime in pursuit of Home Rule, the question asked then as now, is what Parnell knew about the terrorist activities

Anderson concludes his articles by saying that agents sent to Britain to disrupt the Queen’s Jubilee belong to and were supported by men who formed part of an ostensibly peaceful coalition of American Home Rule groups which acknowledged Parnell as their “esteemed leader”, but he does not discuss whether or not Parnell and his lieutenants had any knowledge of the men and activities of that organisation.

In short, it’s difficult to know what, if any, slurs Anderson cast on Parnell in the series of articles. He discussed, citing names and dates and sources (albeit many of the sources cited were secret Clan-na-Gael and other groups documents – which was in fact Anderson’s somewhere stated aim in writing, namely to show to the terrorists that the British knew more about their “secret” meetings and resolutions and members, hoping that the display of knowledge would deter them from future terrorist activities), how an ostensibly peaceful pro-Home Rule organisation to which Parnell was loosely affiliated was in fact run by terrorist leaders. What Anderson wrote was true.

Parnell said one thing to keep some difficult allies sweet but believed something altogether different. Anderson had no way of knowing what Parnell really knew. Furthermore, even if Parnell was totally opposed to terrorist activity and perhaps even found it abhorrent, did he know about planned terrorist activity and if he did in what degree of detail, and would he or could he have told the authorities? And if he couldn’t or wouldn’t have done that, was retention of that knowledge, even if limited, an indirect act of complicity?

There was a very real Jubilee Plot and “Behind the Scenes in America” shows that the authorities had prior knowledge of it - the series of articles was completed at the start of the month on the Jubilee. What if anything Parnell knew of it from the terrorists or their affiliates is obviously unknown, but whether he was in total ignorance of it, which seems highly unlikely if the authorities knew of it, or only became aware of it following the publication of Anderson’s articles, Parnell could have used his contacts to learn more and/or try to prevent it. He is not known to have done either. To what extent would this inactivity make Parnell complicit? I doubt that Anderson would have any doubts about that.


I must get some stuff done now. If you would like to State precisely where in Andersons articles he maligned Parnell I will see what I can turn up for you.

Yours Jeff

PS While I share your support for Charles Stewart and the Irish reform he espoused, we must remember that the catholic Church and all its evils were entwined up to their grubby necks.

[Chris]

... when he could more easily have gone down the Macnaghton 'me know nothing' route.

Eh?

By the time he came to write his memoirs, surely Macnaghten was another one who "thought he knew". And whatever anyone thinks of either of them, they can't both have been right!

[DVV]

No it isn't.

Agreed.
It was perfectly said.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Anderson, whether right or wrong, seemed to know exactly what he was saying. He clearly seems as if he doesn't want to name names for unmentioned reasons, but surely one of those is a reason of legality. Swanson comes along much later and, without fear of repercussion, does give the name. It wasn't a conspiracy of two men writing several years apart. It was the testimony of one man, and the penciling in of the blanks of another. We know they were colleagues and shared the same information. Is it supposed that Swanson added to the lie so many years later? That's really nuts.

If one reads Anderson's words, one sees an adamant man telling exactly what he believes; though it comes off as a bit smug and arrogant. He adds afterthoughts and extra thoughts about the reporter who wrote the letter. Why add this if the lie is about a Polish Jew? Certainly the writer wasn't one, so why bring him into this pointing of blame and misdirection? Too many subjects only create confusion for the reader. No, Anderson said what he truly believed. I have no doubt of that.

Cheers,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Eh?

By the time he came to write his memoirs, surely Macnaghten was another one who "thought he knew". And whatever anyone thinks of either of them, they can't both have been right!

If you add the opinions of Abberline, Littelchilld and Monro with Anderson and Mchaghten you get 5 different variations. Truth be told no one had a clue .

The truth is out here"

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Why is it that some people are so reluctant to entertain the idea that Anderson was an untrustworthy S.O.B?

Richard Pigott, 23rd February 1889—

" . . . I grieve to have to confess that I simply fabricated them, using genuine letters of Messrs. Parnell and Egan in copying certain words and phrases, and general character of the handwriting. I traced some words and phrases by putting the genuine letter against the window and placing the sheet on which I wrote over it . . ."

Following this confession Pigott travelled via Paris to Madrid, where he committed suicide.

Sir Robert Anderson, Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement [1907]—

"Pigott, I repeat, had no part in writing the [Parnell] letter, and he believed it to be genuine."

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Simon

Or (d) He did know and was telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, though without naming names of course.

Thanks Norma

I understand and respect your take on this but personally I can't see why such a powerful and eminent person with responsibility for, as they say now, homeland security would want to big himself up as regards to a squalid murder case when he could more easily have gone down the Macnaghton 'me know nothing' route.

I will come back to this later Stephen but briefly,when the senior police officer,Anderson, who was in overall charge of the "Jack the Ripper" case of 1888, goes to his publisher in 1910 and says he wants to write his autobiography.All Anderson wanted to do,and this is crystal clear when you read his "The Lighter Years of My Official Life etc........" ,is write about his life in charge of [Irish] Special Branch and boast about his acheivements. But hey----wouldnt that publisher ask him if he had any idea of the identity of "Jack the Ripper"-an famous event drawing much interest?After all the publisher isnt publishing books asa hobby ishe? He wants a monetary return for sure and not a huge loss due to the fact that it might be a bit dry for most readers to read endless detail about how Anderson defeated the Fenians.
Undoubtedly Anderson was in a spot":
a]
should he admit the failure of his depatment to catch the notorious killer?
Or
b] should he say the police knew who it was but couldnt act for legal reasons?

He chose the latter,why?

And of crucial note here is the fact that the moment Anderson said "he knew" -devoting no more than a handful of paragraphs to it in his entire book, another, equally senior policeman at the time , but from the London City Police force ,surprisingly charged in and said HE DID NOT KNOW---and then ferociously rebuked him in his own autobiography of 1910.This was the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police ,Major Smith,who as we know,stated categorically and unequivocally that "nobody had known" that the ripper had them ALL [ie BOTH SCOTLAND YARD POLICE and CITY OF LONDON POLICE ] "completely beat" and that Anderson"s "reckless claim" about knowing where the ripper lived was not true.He stated "NOBODY KNEW WHO THE RIPPER WAS OR WHERE HE HAD LIVED".How do you deal with that Stephen? Dont forget he wasnt alone in refuting Anderson"s statement.
Norma

[c.d.]

It doesn't matter whether Anderson was smug or arrogant. It doesn't matter whether he had a history of lying or shading the truth. It doesn't matter if he was a child molester or beat his wife. None of those factors can ultimately determine his veracity in this instance. They can only help us decide how many grains of salt we want to take.

c.d.