Did Anderson Know

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Hi Stewart

I’m some what confused by this argument. Advertised by whom?

Surely the A to Z states clearly on P21 (my copy) “Anderson was obviously a complex character ”. A statement surely we can all agree upon?

Andersons anti-fenian activities and associations with the likes of Jenkinson and Gosselin, have always been known and considered in assessment of his character, at least by those involved in the A to Z.

It must be remembered that Salisbury’s administration supported and colluded with ‘the Times’ in its attack on Parnell and what Anderson did was not done alone but was part of a bigger picture.

As to Andersons correspondence with ‘Le Caron’ Anderson answered this at the time and at least satisfied Sir William Hardcourt, the then leader of the opposition as to his truthfulness.

Anderson is a complex character, and the pro’s and con’s for his statements about the Ripper need to be considered and balanced carefully.

That said, I would like to thank you for your input and assure you that I always give very serious consideration to the points you raise about Anderson and his theory. For me addressing that balance is very important subject indeed. So many thanks for your comments and input.

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..."?

Just to Address this: Yes it is true that no one ever witnessed any of the murders. Lawende stated that he did not think he would recognize the man he saw again. However if my reconstructions are correct one person had a very good view of a man seen assalting Liz Stride at the probable time of her death. And Swanson had plenty of time to consider the possibility that he may have witnessed her murder. If there was an identification it surely would have been considered with othre information in a file that has now been lost?

Of course no one will ever prove positively the identity of Jack the Ripper. But no one, as yet, has proved categorically that Andersons story could NOT have happened or have some elements of truth about it.

Many thanks as always for your time and input.

Yours Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

How About...?

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.
Hi Stewart
I’m some what confused by this argument. Advertised by whom?
Surely the A to Z states clearly on P21 (my copy) “Anderson was obviously a complex character ”. A statement surely we can all agree upon?
...

How about trying the following for size, all Martin Fido?

[Stewart P Evans]

And...

And from Paul Begg, quoting Fido -

[Stewart P Evans]

A-Z

From the A to Z -

[Stewart P Evans]

Far Removed

...
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..."?
Just to Address this: Yes it is true that no one ever witnessed any of the murders. Lawende stated that he did not think he would recognize the man he saw again. However if my reconstructions are correct one person had a very good view of a man seen assalting Liz Stride at the probable time of her death. And Swanson had plenty of time to consider the possibility that he may have witnessed her murder. If there was an identification it surely would have been considered with othre information in a file that has now been lost?
...Yours Pirate

We do not even know if Schwartz would have recognised the man, had he seen him again. Also I am not sure what you mean by 'at the probable time of her death' - this could be a misleading statement. For Swanson himself stated -



In his own words "...it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer..." This is far removed from Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact.'

[Jeff Leahy]

Given the balance of facts it all seems reasonable opinion to me. But many thanks for sharing those quotes. Well heeded words they are to.

Yours Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

We do not even know if Schwartz would have recognised the man, had he seen him again. Also I am not sure what you mean by 'at the probable time of her death' - this could be a misleading statement. For Swanson himself stated -

[ATTACH]7919[/ATTACH]

In his own words "...it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer..." This is far removed from Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact.'

Thanks for that Stewart. Swanson ends that statement with 'Clearly the most probable of the two'. And I'm not stating that Schwartz witnessed Stride being murdered I'm stating that it is a possibility that must have been considered.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Agreed

Thanks for that Stewart. Swanson ends that statement with 'Clearly the most probable of the two'. And I'm not stating that Schwartz witnessed Stride being murdered I'm stating that it is a possibility that must have been considered.
Pirate

Agreed, but that is not the point of contention here. The point is that what we do know of Schwartz's sighting can in no way be described as Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact.'

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, there needs to be some jumps of faith. As with all theories about Ripper suspects.

So I’m saying there is a possible witness, who possibly had a good look at a man who assaulted Liz Stride about the time estimated for her death.

We then have a possible ID parade, where a suspected may have thought himself recognized.

Added to the fact that there may have been more information in a file on Kosminski that no longer exists. Indeed if they went to the trouble of organizing an ID parade it seems a logical conclusion that there must have been more information.

So I’m saying that while I accept there is NO proof that what Anderson said is the truth. That’s a long way from saying Anderson was lying or deliberately making stuff up.

Because at the end of the day we just don’t know what information that statement is based upon. It isn’t out of the realms of possibility that Anderson was telling the truth.

One must balance the evidence and draw ones conclusions one self. The important thing is presenting that evidence as accurately as possible. Hopefully something on which we both can agree, as I much respect your knowledge and input.

Yours Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to clarify my understanding of the A to Z position:

It does not claim Anderson as ‘a paragon of virtue’ or ‘propose him almost as a saint’. The crucial part of Martin’s argument, and oft quoted by Begg is as follows:

“Not that he [Anderson] was as priggishly truthful as Washington with the legendary cherry tree. As an ex-Secret Serviceman, he had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to ones brothers, but he denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear truth they would only misuse…
Hair-splitting? Of course. That is the nature of scrupulosity. But it is quite incompatible with publishing lies in books for a wide audience.”

Martin’s position is simply that Anderson would lie if it achieved a greater good, such as bringing a murderer or terrorist to justice, but would not do so to enhance his own reputation or that of the CID.

You might ague that that assessment is incorrect but don’t think it fair to say that Anderson has been portrayed here as Whiter than white. On the contrary my understanding of their position has been to stress the complicated nature of his character and the importance of understanding the historical context in which he worked, and wrote, what he did.

And that is largely what I have been attempting to do, seek a balanced argument in regard to what made Anderson tick.

All best

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

How then do you square all this up with the factual statements by several other policemen who worked on the Ripper Investigation,notably Inspector Abberline who as good as said Anderson was a liar and was talking a lot of nonsense?
I chose Abberline"s opinion about Anderson"s suspect, over the City of London Police Chief, Henry Smith because Abberline being from the met police would have had the full file on the Shwartz witness statement and made no such connection.In fact emphatically denied it!
But hey Jeff,Abberline wasnt trying to sex things up to please his publisher was he?

Best

Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

I’ll have a go Norm,

Firstly, Henry Smith was unreliable. Abberline and Anderson might both have been correct if Abbreline was suggesting Chapman as the Torso killer.

And lastly there is no evidence Anderson’sex’t’ things up and this is a very 20th century concept as far as publishing goes. The lighter side of my official life is anything but…

Have a good evening and catch you next week

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Update

Just to clarify my understanding of the A to Z position:
It does not claim Anderson as ‘a paragon of virtue’ or ‘propose him almost as a saint’. The crucial part of Martin’s argument, and oft quoted by Begg is as follows:
“Not that he [Anderson] was as priggishly truthful as Washington with the legendary cherry tree. As an ex-Secret Serviceman, he had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to ones brothers, but he denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear truth they would only misuse…
Hair-splitting? Of course. That is the nature of scrupulosity. But it is quite incompatible with publishing lies in books for a wide audience.”
Martin’s position is simply that Anderson would lie if it achieved a greater good, such as bringing a murderer or terrorist to justice, but would not do so to enhance his own reputation or that of the CID.
You might ague that that assessment is incorrect but don’t think it fair to say that Anderson has been portrayed here as Whiter than white. On the contrary my understanding of their position has been to stress the complicated nature of his character and the importance of understanding the historical context in which he worked, and wrote, what he did.
And that is largely what I have been attempting to do, seek a balanced argument in regard to what made Anderson tick.
...

I was waiting for this 'update' of your position.

I am not going to analyse, here, the catalogue of pro-Anderson writing by Martin and Paul since 1987/8. Suffice to say that one of the most noticeable aspects of it is the fact that most of the material that militates against Anderson has been almost totally missing until recent times. Thus it is only recently that some balance has been achieved. I have noticed the mutual support that these two authors give to each other. Needless to say their assessment of Anderson does not agree with that arrived at by such historians/authors as O Broin, Porter, Sugden and Campbell.

Suffice it to say the basic A-Z premise is that Anderson would simply not lie in his book or deceive his readers as they were 'brothers' rather than 'murderous terrorists or subversives'. Another of Martin's conclusions was that Anderson 'would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force's reputation.' Well, sorry, call me an old cynic if you like but I just don't accept that. I would rather join the company of O Broin, Porter, Sugden and Campbell and demur.

If you read Martin's book, The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper, you will find a chapter on Anderson 'The Man Who Knew Too Much: Sir Robert Anderson' and, yes, I do think it portrays him as a paragon of honesty and virtue. Paul largely agrees with the conclusions of this chapter and both authors have devoted thousands of words to the man and his conclusions. That created an imbalance (ask Simon Wood) and now the balance is being redressed.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Walsall Bomb Plot

The Walsall bomb plot of 1891 was an extremely dubious affair from the police point of view and was undoubtedly an example of police use of agents provocateurs.

To use Anderson's words "I would say emphatically that in recent years the Police have succeeded only by straining the law, or, in plain English, by doing unlawful things, at intervals, to check the conspiracy." [Anderson memo dated 13 December 1898 ref - HO45/10254/X36450]

As you have no doubt seen in Anderson's book he stated that most 'kudos attached to the detection rather than the prevention of crimes.' Here, I'm afraid he's getting things the wrong way round. Police priority is prevention - then detection.

Sure you may use the excuse that here the aim was to lock up the bombers - but by setting up the plot first? I think that Anderson clearly had double standards and did not allow his official work to be influenced by his religious beliefs.

[Natalie Severn]

How very selective you are,Jeff, about the senior policemen you choose to believe!
Some factual observations:

Macnaghten was "unreliable"!!!!!

Anderson was "unreliable"!!!!!

I dont know about Abberline.He certainly never thought Schwartz had seen the ripper let alone thought it a "definitely ascertainable fact".In fact he apparently thought what Winston Churchill thought, that what Anderson did best was to make up Fairy Tales!




The Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police, Sir Henry Smith,may have been "unreliable' but he was certainly no more unreliable than Sir Melville Macnaghten or Sir Robert Anderson........and thankfully never went in for creating dubious "identification scenarios" with vulnerable patients in mental institutions! The man Anderson chose to target and put in his book, THe Lighter Years of My Official Life",was apparently Kosminski .If it was Aaron Kosminski , a man who at 25 was diagnosed by his doctors as "harmless " both initially and throughout his 30 year hospital stay for mental health care,then this Kosminski never once had a single conviction for violent behaviour in his life.
Sadly he would have been in no position to answer back over such an accusation by Anderson ,who decided to dub him "Jack the Ripper"--- the World"s most famous serial killer.

But then what does that matter when you need to persuade everyone who reads your autobiography that you were the policeman who knew who the ripper was and had even id"ed him?