Did Anderson Know

[The Good Michael]

Rob,

I agree with everything you've said. The first belief is that it wasn't a Polish Jew because it doesn't fit into their agenda. The next step is to find fault with Anderson as a human being in order to dismiss his remarks, and thereby support the real agenda which is removal of a highly plausible candidate.

Cheers,

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

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"

Trevor,this is such a TRUTH and so important to the TRUTH too!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma

Thanks for your considered reply in a very nice post. Yes, of course I know all that. But please understand that the rank of Major in the British Army is a fallback rank reserved for misfits, the cads and bounders and womanisers and gamblers and general inadequates (cf James Hewitt, the old boy in Fawlty Towers, the Galloping Major etc etc etc). Saying Major So and So said this and that or the other is neither here nor there as regards this very great mystery.

Thanks Simon,
An uncle in the family became a Major during the first World War and his recollection of duties performed in the trenches was far from that which you describe.
Returning to the case in point ; Major Smith was "Sir Henry Smith" actually.And he too wrote his autobiography in 1910. During the Ripper series of murders he was acting Chief Commissioner of The City of London Police,later becoming Chief Commissioner of The City of London Police.

Regarding your comment- "Saying Major So and So said this that or the other is neither here nor there as regards this very great mystery".
My reason,in this instance for saying "Major" was simply that on the night of the double event another policeman named Smith was on duty from the met police.Major Smith came to the Eddowes Crime scene within a few hours,PC Smith was close to the Berner Street crime scene earlier that night at 12.35. and saw Elizabeth Stride talking to a man nearby.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Trouble Is

...
And of course the rarely mentioned alternative is that Anderson was telling the truth and not confused. This, of course, did not make it into Simon's three options, which is not surprising given the level of bias against Anderson on these boards.
I will only repeat that nothing Anderson ever wrote about the "Polish Jew suspect" is inconsistent with what is known about Aaron Kozminski, with the apparent exception of his statement that the identification took place "when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum." This was removed from the book version, possibly because Anderson realized it was an error.
The idea that Anderson was either lying, had failing memory, or was being "boastful" and embellishing the facts is simply an assumption on the part of those who either find what he said implausible, or who simply don't wish to believe that he may have been telling the truth AND not wrong.
I personally doubt that the police had sufficient hard evidence to justify Anderson's "definitely ascertained fact" remark. However, I do believe that Anderson was telling the truth... in other words, expressing what he believed to be true beyond a doubt, in his mind. Hence his use of the phrase "moral proof" or "moral certainty."
Moral certainty: n. in a criminal trial, the reasonable belief (but falling short of absolute certainty) of the trier of the fact (jury or judge sitting without a jury) that the evidence shows the defendant is guilty. Moral certainty is another way of saying “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Since there is no exact measure of certainty it is always somewhat subjective and based on “reasonable” opinions of judge and/or jury.
Rob H

The fact that Anderson might have believed what he said is, of course, an option. The trouble is that for many years Anderson was advertised as some sort of paragon of virtue who would not boast, nor lie to his readers. Now, as we see, the contra side to Anderson is being presented after all those years of proposing him almost as a saint.

And all this in an attempt to get to the bottom of his character, and what he said, in an attempt to validate it as the truth. This is, of course, impossible. There will always be, I think, two 'camps', pro and anti; and ne'er the twain shall meet. His honesty, or lack of it, is germane to the feasibility of what he claimed with regard to the identity of the Ripper. So according to certain authors he would not lie or boast to the readers of his books, whereas others, I would venture to suggest, take a more worldly view of things. The best route to take, I would have thought, is the open minded route and to keep amenable to all options. Me, well I'm a cynic and I'm afraid that I have come across many very religious hypocrites.

So, it is good that there are those, like Rob, who espouse Anderson's claims and those, like Simon, who do not. I have always said that there should be little doubt that Anderson's 'Polish Jew' was Macnaghten's (and Swanson's) 'Kosminski'. That 'Kosminski' was Aaron Kozminski seems to be a reasonable proposition. What Anderson's idea of 'moral certainty' was is anybody's guess, but it certainly did not conform to the legal definition of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

The fact that what Anderson claimed cannot be correct is easy to see. First, as has oft been pointed out, there was no witness who actually saw a Ripper murder being committed, so how can Anderson say, "...the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer..."? Also had there been any evidence worthy of the name an arrest would have been made - but it wasn't. But these arguments have all been trailed out before with neither side willing to give an inch. Macnaghten also tells us, in 1894, that "No one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer: many homidicdal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

[Stewart P Evans]

Secret Service Department

Thanks for that SPE. What I was getting at is that opinion on Anderson’s ability is mixed and indeed complicated as you have stated. I came across this:
“Brian Jenkins, an emeritus professor of history, in his book The Fenian Problem (2008), which looked at Fenian activities between 1858-1874, does not share the view that Anderson was inept, but says that “[Percy] Fielding and Anderson had created a well-organised, thorough, and coordinated system for the gathering of the foreign and domestic intelligence so essential in counter-terrorism.” (pg. 171) “

Here we have Anderson sited as a crack anti-Fenian specialist hardly inept or failing in his job. But then Anderson is indeed one of the more complicated characters in the case to fathom and I neither claim to be authority or expert. My interest is getting at the facts and both sides of a complicated argument.
Many thanks for your contribution
Jeff

In 1867 the government decided to form a secret service department in London, separate from the police force. Lieutenant-Colonel William H. A. Feilding, the senior Army Intelligence Officer in Ireland, was brought over to organise this on a temporary basis. He brought two assistants, Captain Whelan (an army 'Fenian hunter') and the young barrister from Dublin Castle, Robert Anderson. Anderson was considered to be knowledgeable on Fenian activity as he had prepared a report on the subject for Lord Mayo.

Anderson took up his post in the Irish Office in London on 19 December 1867 and remained there until April 1868 when he moved to the Home Office as 'adviser relating to political crime'. Feilding left after the immediate crisis had blown over. In later years Anderson claimed that the scheme worked admirably, but the need for the operation was viewed by him with extreme scepticism. What was very fortunate for Anderson was the fact that in 1867 Thomas Billis Beach (aka 'Henri le Caron'), had become involved with the Fenians in North America in 1866 and was writing to his father in Colchester telling him about the Fenians. Beach senior told his local MP whose idea was to alert the relevant authority - at that time Anderson.

Thomas Beach was in England on a visit and met with Anderson, who took him on as a full-time, professional agent. It is hard not to think that Anderson, realising what a valuable asset he had, did not immediately decide to keep this contact to himself in order to secure his own position. He could, of course, claim that he did this in order to protect 'le Caron', a valid (if unorthodox) point. It was agreed that Beach would deal with no one else. This contact was undoubtedly what secured Anderson's position with the Home Office. Beach was paid from government funds.

How really effective Anderson was is dubious [Porter]. As Porter points out, Anderson's reports from 'le Caron' 'made Anderson seem mysteriously omniscient' (he would have loved that); and, of course, 'he was alone, a one-man secret service band in Whitehall, with no one to challenge his own version of the role. It must have been gratifying, and not very hard work. It certainly gave him plenty of leisure...' [Porter]. Professor Bernard Porter was a reader in history at Hull University, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Newcastle, took his degrees at Cambridge University, becoming a Fellow of Corpus Christi College before moving to Hull, a Chair at Newcastle and Visiting Professorships at the Universities of Yale and Sydney.

[Stewart P Evans]

No Way

...
Anderson did find himself in trouble with the Parnell Commission, but it wasn’t for writing the articles in The Times; Henri Le Caron had elected to gives evidence at the Commission for The Times and had requested from Anderson the return of letters he had written to him. It had been agreed with Anderson that the letters were to be “deemed private”. Anderson duly let Le Caron have the letters and for this he found himself in serious hot water, especially with Sir William Harcourt, and the spineless Henry Matthews was even prepared to throw Anderson to the wolves, it being argued that the material constituted “the secret papers of the Home Office”.
This was one of those situations were both sides were right: Le Caron was arguably in the pay of the English government as a spy and therefore the government could rightfully claim that they had a right to all the information he obtained. On the other hand, Le Caron and Anderson did apparently have an agreement that Le Caron’s letters were private and personal correspondence to Anderson. The government could – and did – magnify their position out of all proportion, whereas Anderson’s defence was equally solid. According to Anderson, Harcourt subsequently apologised, drawing attention to differences between the two men in their “modes of procedure” (i.e., they would do things differently)and concluding: “Pray go on as you have done in your useful work, and you may rely on entire sympathy and support from me. I am always most grateful for your reports and advice.”
...

There is no way that Anderson should have retained all the correspondence with 'le Caron' that he had received in his capacity as 'spymaster', a civil servant. 'le Caron' was paid from public funds and the material should not have left the Home Office. All Anderson needed was another burglary at his home and all that 'secret' material could have been stolen.

But, as we know, not only did Anderson retain documentation that he shouldn't have he also, not to put too fine a point on it, stole it. This fact is evidenced by some of the correspondence belonging to other officials which he retained at home to his dying day. It then went into the hands of his family. Apropos of Harcourt's letter of so-called apology, mentioned above, it appears on page 294 of The Lighter Side of My Official Life and I reproduce it below. Also I own this original letter, see scan below.

[Stewart P Evans]

Harcourt's Letter

Here are the other two pages of Harcourt's letter, mentioned above -

[Stephen Thomas]

Macnaghten also tells us, in 1894, that "No one ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer: many homidicdal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

Indeed, Stewart

But surely MM could have been lying and Anderson not.

Why favour one over the other?

[Stewart P Evans]

I Don't

Indeed, Stewart
But surely MM could have been lying and Anderson not.
Why favour one over the other?

I don't favour one over the other, I am sure that Macnaghten was as capable of lying as Anderson if he needed to. However, one statement appeared in a commercially published magazine and book, the other in a confidential police report. But, hey, I guess everyone will choose whichever they prefer anyway.

[Stephen Thomas]

However, one statement appeared in a commercially published magazine and book, the other in a confidential police report.

Hi Stewart

A confidential police report composed for whom?

[Natalie Severn]

I don't favour one over the other, I am sure that Macnaghten was as capable of lying as Anderson if he needed to. However, one statement appeared in a commercially published magazine and book, the other in a confidential police report. But, hey, I guess everyone will choose whichever they prefer anyway.

Well Macnaghten was definitely said to have a sort of museum of JtR exhibits in his house that Sims saw and commented on.But I reckon that neither Anderson and Macnaghten ever left their paw marks anywhere near the yard-just like Macavity!

[Stewart P Evans]

Sir Edward Bradford

Hi Stewart
A confidential police report composed for whom?

Sir Edward Bradford - but that is fully explored in the new revised edition of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper. I don't intend to repeat it all again here. But, as I say, you no doubt have your own ideas and far be it from me to try and convert you.

[harry]

Little article I picked up in an overseas paper,dated 16-2-1928.Given by Rabbi Nathaniel Jacobs in a lecture on crime and punishment.
'It is beautifully portrayed in the writings of the late Sir Robert Anderson,one of the highest authorities on crime and crminals'.That is what the good Rabbi said,among a lot of other things.
Who was Rabbi Jacobs? Good question.

[The Good Michael]

Stewart,

I don't think we thank you enough, nor do you ask for it, but thanks very much for posting the documents that you do and for trying to keep us honest.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Far be it from me to take issue with an emeritus professor of history, but Percy Fielding has been mistaken for his brother William Fielding, Lieutenant Colonel in the Coldstream Guards and senior army intelligence officer in Ireland. His civilian secretary in the new Secret Service Department [formed in December 1867 following the Clerkenwell explosion] was Robert Anderson. The department operated until April 1868, after which it was disbanded and Anderson went on to work at the Home Office.

Four months doesn't sound long to me in which to create a well-organised, thorough, and coordinated intelligence gathering system.

Regards, Simon

Far be it from me also, but I believe Dr Jenkins is correct in saying that it was Percy FEILDING, whose brief service record is available at the National Archives (WO 25/827/3).”

Pirate