Did Anderson Know

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Okay, I offer you my recent article in Ripperologist #109.

Regards, Simon

Ok PM it to me

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

That would be unfair to Ripperologist.

Subscribe. Or order a back number.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm sure they will OK it....

[Jeff Leahy]

3 Days waiting and no reply Simon? Why do I feel you have nothing new to add?

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

And here was me thinking that somebody who had damned my article as looney tune [post #687] had at least had the courtesy to read it first.

Take a look out of your window and see if Hell's frozen over, because that'll be the day I send you my article.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

By strange chance it is snowing here in kent..I'm sure it will show up..

Kent is like Narnia

Yours Aslan

[Simon Wood]

Don't hold your breath.

[Jeff Leahy]

You cynical old white witch...it will show up..and has already been discussed in depth? but then that is Narnia

Pirate

[DVV]

There's a long and excellent article on Kosminski in Ripperologist #111...

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

Hi All,

Having finally caught up with this thread, I wondered if anyone had any more recent thoughts about Crawford's letter to Anderson, and what, if any significance it had in relation to the latter's statements about the Whitechapel Murderer.

I’ll quote Chris’s post here as a handy reminder:

2 CAVENDISH SQUARE
W.

My dear Anderson,

I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.

I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.

Very sincerely yours,
Crawford

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

Victorian English can be a whole different language on occasion, and it can trip us up if we always interpret it strictly in the modern sense. It would help if we knew whether the woman contacted Crawford direct or confided in someone who took it upon themselves to do so on her behalf. Did Crawford literally not know the identity of the woman who was to be the bearer of his letter to Anderson, or could he have meant that her family name was not one that he had any prior knowledge of? Did he know anything about her class or nationality, or not a clue? Is there any significance to be read into his specific advice to this woman not to give Anderson any names if and when she placed the ‘whole’ story before him?

All we can presume is that the woman did get Crawford’s advice - along with the letter of introduction for Anderson - and the latter was duly delivered. We don’t know if Anderson played ball and agreed to receive the woman along with the letter, or if he gave either any credence. But he did preserve the letter at least, and if she plucked up the courage to take it to him personally, I can’t imagine that he would not have been sufficiently curious to have a butchers at someone who thought they knew the murderer to be their near relative.

I know others have pointed out (as I am about to do again) that a reasonable interpretation of the Victorian-speak ‘nearly related’ is ‘closely related’, eg the woman’s brother, rather than a more distant relation or extended family member. But if anyone is still not convinced, look at these lines from the famous prayer:

To see thee more clearly
To love thee more dearly
To follow thee more nearly

In any case, we can surely ditch the idea that Crawford could have meant ‘not quite related’.

Moving on, the woman seems to be terrified of her suspicions becoming public knowledge, thus putting herself and her ‘family’ (her ‘people’?) in peril. This could suggest that where she lives the people are likely to turn into a raging mob if they get wind of the fact that she is worried enough about her family member's behaviour to take things further. Crawford does appear to put great emphasis on the need for a discreet investigation that will not lead to any such trouble for her or her family personally.

It’s hard for me not to entertain the idea, somewhere at the back of my head, that Anderson could have respected Crawford’s words and could have thought it worth while to hear the woman out and then investigate the lead (discreetly and with Swanson’s help?), and that it may even have led to the breakthrough that made him believe he had personally cracked the case, even if others thought he was full of it. What if Anderson did see this woman and did take her story seriously? What if she presented as a low-class Jew, who talked about her mentally ill brother who had threatened her with a knife while suffering some serious delusion about her that she knew to be just that - a delusion? On its own it wouldn’t be anywhere near enough to make him the Ripper, but it would have confirmed Anderson’s personal views, particularly if she stuck to Crawford’s advice not to divulge any identifying details while voicing her fears. "I am at my wit's end and don't know who I can trust with his name and address" could even translate as "I'm afraid to give him up to Gentile justice" in Anderson's mind.

Anderson must have had a name in mind for the person he believed to be the Whitechapel Murderer. But he never let that name slip in any of his writings that have come down to us. Was it because he was keeping a personal promise made to an informant who convinced him that he had been on the right track all along?

If any of this has been discussed or debunked elsewhere, I can only apologise for not being up to speed.

Love,

Caz
X

[robhouse]

Very good post Caz.

In my opinion, this scenario is very plausible. It is difficult to see how a low class resident of the East End would have come into contact with the Earl of Crawford. However, as I have mentioned before... Crawford was a member of the Lords Committee on the Sweating System, which met for the first time in March 1888. Numerous tailors and employees working in the tailoring industry (including female employees) testified before the Committee. So I suppose it is possible Matilda could have come into contact with Crawford somehow via this connection.

RH

[Jonathan H]

The Crawford Letter might be how Kosminski came to the attention of the leaders of CID.

I see no problem, in theory, with an aristocrat having arms-length contact with a member of the lower orders because he was, as Rob pointed out, doing 'good works' regarding the East End -- and the Earl states that an intermediary is involved. He does not know the concerned citizen himself.

Another strong aspect of this tantalizing source is that it would explain how Anderson and Macnaghten knew about Kosminski [I think not until after he was incarcerated in 1891] yet the lower echelons of the Force had never heard of him -- and scoffed at his existence, or at least that he was a contemporaneous suspect. In the same way that it fits that Druitt came to Mac's attention via a loose-lipped Tory MP, not any kind of investigation by detectives in the field -- hence the latter's same ignorance about this alternate too-late suspect.

On the other hand, as the Crawford Letter is not dated -- and that there are no names mentioned apart from the Earl and Anderson -- that is about as far as we can get unless something else turns up.

Also, in the meager record left to us it is Macnaghten, not Anderson, who is the first to mention 'Kosminski' and in exactly the same way that Swanson will, a generation later, in his private annotation; the first name is missing.

It is Macnaghten, not Swanson and/or Anderson [depending who was the actual source of the Marginalia's content] who is correct in 1894 [and perhaps as late as 1898] that Kosminski was still alive in the asylum, not 'died shortly afterwards', and who also seems to have been feeding Sims correct data in the 1900's that this suspect was out and about for a considerable length of time after the Kelly murder, not 'safely caged' in 1888.

This strongly suggests that Kosminski first came to Macnaghten's attention, a 'suspect' he, rightly or wrongly, rejected.

Another aspect of the Crawford Letter referring to Kosminski which feels wrong is thematic. A recurrent theme of Anderon's is that 'certain' low-class Polish Jews were unhelpful to Scotland Yard regarding the Polish Jew suspect. That they rejected the English rule of law as 'Gentile Justice', and were uncoperative -- as was an alleged Jewish witness.

This ingrained bitterness on Anderson's part does not seem to tally with a member of Kosminski's family, or extended family, trying to reach out to the Yard for assistance.

[Jeff Leahy]

Another aspect of the Crawford Letter referring to Kosminski which feels wrong is thematic. A recurrent theme of Anderon's is that 'certain' low-class Polish Jews were unhelpful to Scotland Yard regarding the Polish Jew suspect. That they rejected the English rule of law as 'Gentile Justice', and were uncoperative -- as was an alleged Jewish witness.

This ingrained bitterness on Anderson's part does not seem to tally with a member of Kosminski's family, or extended family, trying to reach out to the Yard for assistance.

Surely if Aarons sister went to Anderson. And then dictated conditions. Then that is exactly what she would be doing, "be un-cooperative'.

Having gained promises from Anderson ( a man of honour) surely he was always on a hiding?

Pirate

[Phil Carter]

Hello Caz, all,
The connection with Anderson, the quasi religious gentleman, and the letter's wording..

To see thee more clearly
To love thee more dearly
To follow thee more nearly

It was bugging me until I realised it wasn't just a religious wording..
The creators of Godspell, the musical, used it in the song "Day by Day" did they not?

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Surely if Aarons sister went to Anderson. And then dictated conditions. Then that is exactly what she would be doing, "be un-cooperative'.

Having gained promises from Anderson ( a man of honour) surely he was always on a hiding?

Pirate

Any thoughts ?

Amitiés,
David