Did Anderson Know

[Jeff Leahy]

Yet curiously despite all this Andrson felt confident enough to publish what he did.

Despite the fact that Simon Wood would be waiting for him one hundred years later

Pirate

PS that’s not an official position

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

I doubt if Anderson decided to 'sex-up' his book version of TLSOMOL with a Polish Jew in order to please his publisher and boost sales. It was hardly a revelation in late 1910, for it had already appeared earlier the same year in Blackwood's magazine.

Moving on—

Apart from Mentor's original objections to Anderson pointing a finger at the Jews, there appears to have been little or no press and public interest in his solution to the 22-year-old mystery of Jack the Ripper.

However, we cannot escape the fact that in 1910 it was a publicly broadcast and "definitely ascertained fact" that the Whitechapel murderer was a Polish Jew.

So if Anderson, the police officer in charge of the 1888 Ripper investigation, was telling the truth, why was he not believed? Why did his 1910 revelation fail to stop the mystery in its tracks?

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Simon and Jeff,
Simon, Anderson"s 1910 book actually gives very little away ,if you have read it you will know what I mean.Moreover,as you may be aware,in 1892 Thomas Beach,alias Henri Le Caron,Anderson"s main agent, had published his "Anderson censored "memoirs-under yet another alias-Dr Howard.These memoirs had been a best seller. Anderson"s 1910 book must have had to "reveal" a few more tasty tid bits than just same old ,same old dry spy stuff---after all they would have expected some sales.Thats what I meant by "sexed up".So Blackwoods or no Blackwoods, his publisher would surely have encouraged him to "repeat" the story of his "side line" claim to fame, of how he tracked down "Jack the Ripper"?
Moving on........because nobody believed him Simon.

[jason_c]

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

"For years the armchair theorists have struggled to explain the anomalies of the statements, admittedly flawed, made by Anderson, Macnaghten, and Swanson. Here we have a totally viable, and legally correct, explanation for what happened. It is, of course, not proven but it is the explanation most consistent with the facts, and with what the various police officers wrote. In my submission, it is the most plausible explanation for what actually took place in relation to the suspect Kosminski."

Copyright

Stewart P Evans, 1999.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

Yes, that would have been my reply.

It's interesting to note that Dagonet [George R. Sims], himself a keen Ripper aficionado, in his 25th February 1911 article on Jack the Ripper [published just three months after the appearance of Anderson's TLSOMOL book] made not a mention of, or a reference to, Anderson's Polish Jew. He instead discussed the Lodger variation on the story and concluded by stating, "There was ample proof that the real author of the horrors had committed suicide in the last stage of his maniacal frenzy."

Anderson and his suspect were being dismissed/disbelieved/ignored almost before the ink was dry on the Blackwood's article and yet again when the book version was published.

As it is clear that nobody believed Anderson's Polish Jew suspect in 1910, I see no reason to start believing it now.

Aaron Kosminski deserves better from us than the current lynch mob intent on protecting Sir Robert Anderson's reputation at the cost of condemning an innocent man to eternal damnation.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jason

I think I would agree that this is a more plausible explanation then suggesting that the facts were confused with the Sadler ID.

Although I don't see Lawende as a plausible witness, by his own admission he had a poor view of the fellow.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Anderson and his propensity to "invent information" etc

Thanks Simon.
I agree with you -

Jason,
I read Stewart"s article a long time ago but thanks for drawing attention to it.What I do know is that quite a bit has come to light about Sir Robert Anderson ,lately,in particular his 1910 'confession" that he was behind the 1887 Times Articles," Parnell and Crime"-in which we learn from him that it was he, who in 1887 had "invented information" about the leader of the Irish Home Rule,Member of Parliament, Charles Parnell .
The articles Anderson confessed to writing were part of the plot , hatched in Wardour Street ,Soho by several of Parnell"s enemies.It included Captain William O"Shea,the husband of Kitty O"Shea, who was Parnell"s mistress and who he later married; George Mulqueeny,a long time informer of both Anderson and Monro and----wait for it!---- Richard Pigott!!!Its aim was to defeat both Parnell and his party in their attempt to bring about Home Rule in Ireland by Democtratic Parliamentary reforms in Westminster.Anderson"s articles ran in the Times concurrent with the letters forged by Richard Pigott.
Also Jason, members of parliament appear to have been well aware by 1910 that Anderson was rather creative with the truth--- hence Winston Churchill"s remarks about Anderson- lampooning him by likening him to his namesake Hans Christian Anderson----comparing Sir Robert Anderson"s writings and public declamations to Hans Anderson"s Fairy Tales.

[Scott Nelson]

But what about the OU Duck brooch episode?

[Natalie Severn]

How about reading up on Mentor Scott? As the editor of the Jewish Chronicle he gave a very robust reply to Anderson"s

" nonsensical " theory

"A more wicked assertion to put into print WITHOUT A SHADOW OF EVIDENCE I have seldom seen"

[The Good Michael]

Mentor was a Jew. Would he, as a jew and a Zionist, give glowing praise to Anderson's comments that might paint fellow Jews with the same brush as JTR? Mentor cannot possibly be used for any support in this argument. THAT is nonsensical.

Mike

[Scott Nelson]

How about reading up on Mentor Scott?

I addressed the Mentor/Anderson exchanges some years ago -- long before you and other ethusiasts heard about them. Anderson was "sticking to his guns" as I wrote about the point/counterpoint exchanges with Mentor. Anderson wasn't backing down. Mentor wasn't privy to any "evidence."

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/kosfinal.html

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!"

Anyway, it's possible, that a prankster wrote the graffito to misslead the investigators!

All the best
Jukka

[Stewart P Evans]

Dissertation

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html
"For years the armchair theorists have struggled to explain the anomalies of the statements, admittedly flawed, made by Anderson, Macnaghten, and Swanson. Here we have a totally viable, and legally correct, explanation for what happened. It is, of course, not proven but it is the explanation most consistent with the facts, and with what the various police officers wrote. In my submission, it is the most plausible explanation for what actually took place in relation to the suspect Kosminski."
Copyright
Stewart P Evans, 1999.

This dissertation is, and was intended to be, exactly what it says - according both Anderson and Swanson the benefit of being as accurate and truthful as possible whilst remaining, at the same time, both viable and legally correct. It is, of course, as with any such dissertation, a hypothetical scenario. Needless to say it wasn't meant as my final, nor decided, word on the subject. But I have explained all this before.

[Stewart P Evans]

Game

I addressed the Mentor/Anderson exchanges some years ago -- long before you and other ethusiasts heard about them. Anderson was "sticking to his guns" as I wrote about the point/counterpoint exchanges with Mentor. Anderson wasn't backing down. Mentor wasn't privy to any "evidence."
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/kosfinal.html

Whilst we are playing the 'who heard first what' game, no one had heard of these exchages until first discovered by Nick Connell over ten years ago whilst writing our book The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper (2000), in which book they were first published. My how you have changed over the years Scott.

[Natalie Severn]

I addressed the Mentor/Anderson exchanges some years ago -- long before you and other ethusiasts heard about them. Anderson was "sticking to his guns" as I wrote about the point/counterpoint exchanges with Mentor. Anderson wasn't backing down. Mentor wasn't privy to any "evidence."

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/kosfinal.html

So how come he has the total support of the Chief Commissioner of the CITY OF LONDON POLICE, Sir Henry Smith?

So how come Sir Henry Smith, who writes about Anderson"s "reckless assertion" in total support of Mentor"s accusation in his own Autobiography of 1910, isnt taken to court by Sir Robert Anderson,a lawyer in his own right?He could surely have won a libel case against Smith who as good as called Anderson a liar and irresponsable.

Sir Henry Smith rubbishes every claim Anderson makes about the police knowing who the ripper was and emphatically denies that any policeman,from either the Met or the City of London,knew in 1888 or twenty years later when Blackwoods published Anderson"s claim.


It wasnt just Inspector Abberline who said Anderson was talking a lot of nonsense.

Best Wishes

Norma