Did Anderson Know

[Jeff Leahy]

The only person who ever had a close and personal view of a suspect was Schwartz. Lawende clearly stated that he would not recognize the man again.

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

To Pirate,

It is not that Anderson is mistaking Gentile Sadler for Aaron Kosminski.

Rather it is that his fading memory has entirely eliminated the real events of 1891 which involved Frances Coles, Tom Sadler, Joseph Lawende and, at some point, Aaron Kosminski.

Eliminated that the Ripper hunt continued much beyond 1889. That is what his memoirs claim and that is what the Marginalia claims -- if Swanson means that the Kelly murder was the final one.

You can actually track how Anderson's memory is then redacting fragments of 1891 back into 1888 for a much more satisfying story [though its tone is bitter] which makes him look better, CID look better -- all about a mystery he thought was ludicrously over-rated and tabloid-driven. The Ripper murders do not even get a chapter to itself, nor does he bother with the victims' names. Why would he remember correctly?

But Anderson is not losing his mind. I've never suggested such a thing!

Having read the self-serving memoirs of dozens of others on many other historical subjects it is par for the course that episodes which are somewhat messy or unflattering are dressed up by ego and bias.

Everybody I have ever read does this. Nothing to do with being geriatric or insane; just natural aging processes combined with the need to retrospectively justify.

You say the Marginalia is genuine as if I am questioning that fact. I assure I am not.

What I am wondering [and for once I am not alone] is why Swanson wrote it, and where it actually comes from? Was it his own story which he had passed onto the desk-bound Anderson and was thus correcting after his ex-chief had made a hash of it, or one he recorded from his ex-chief -- but did not necessarily believe? Either way the limitation of this unofficial source is that it may be providing us with repetition not confirmation.

This does not knock out the Marginalia. Far from it. Another possibility is that the operational head of CID is confirming for us that Kosminski was the best bet to be the Ripper. That's possible. Yet it is not the only interpretation, and arguably is not the strongest either.

The Anderson/Swanson story, because it is contradicted by other primary and early secondary sources [inlcuding by themselves] requires people to choose.

Martin Fido chose to believe that these retired policemen setting the story of the Polish Jew suspect in 1888 was correct, but that they must have the identity wrong [eg. David Cohen] as it does not match Kosminski's much later incarceration [and that the police hospital was built in 1890].

Evans and Rumbelow [among others] in 2006 chose to accept that it was Kosminski, but that the timing has to be wrong as this man could not have been a suspect in 1888, be wandering around for two years, that there be a failed attempt to charge Sadler not only for Coles but as 'Jack' -- all AFTER Kosminski was supposedly positively identified!?

Kosminski's emergence into the case must post-date his being institutionalized which the first version of Anderson's 1910 story inadvertently admitted, before being 'corrected' in the book version. By that year Anderson had become quite confused. Not that he had mistaken Sadler for Kosminski -- but that he had forgotten the sailor's existence at all! And that the mystery's humiliating climax took place in 1891, let alone that Lawende said yes to Grainger as late as 1895, the year he face-savingly first alluded to the 'safely caged' suspect. This is completely typical and mundane of egotistical memoirists who are wont to both consciously and unconsciously reshape events which do not show their judgment in a positive light.

Look, check out that raging egoist Sarah Palin in her recent 'Going Rogue'. Would you call her old or geriatric [I'll leave out insane]? Her book is full of self-serving versions of alternate reality about any number of things, practically on every single page.

That people like yourself see no need to choose, that everything about Anderson's version, confirmed by Swanson -- minus the odd minor error here and there, like the suspect still being alive and not twenty years dead -- is a simple, straight-forward account, a slam dunk, is for me the ultimate fantasy.

The ultimate cojecture.

You are right that I am biased towards Macnaghten-Druitt.

But you make this sound like some big shock-horror revelation.

Of course I am. We are all biased. Aren't you?

In defense of myself, I have argued against Macnaghten as a source on these message boards. That he knew nothing. That he over-rated his 'incredible' memory and foolishly acted as if he knew all. That he had one source on Druitt, an MP who was arguably a twit.

Macnaghten may have been a charming phony, but a phony nonetheless.

That Anderson may not have been a charmer, to put it mildly, but at least he was not a phony either. He was the honest, diligent, non-racist head of CID in 1888 and his opinion that a Polish Jew suspect trumped all others remains the titanium strength of Kosminski's plausibility as one of, if not the best, suspect.

I have also put counter-arguments against my own position about Druitt, and this is apparently such an unusual thing to do here, that some posters thought I had changed my mind -- or that I had no firm position at all?

Because I can entertain multiple arguments I actually think we do agree more than we disagree. Aaron Kosminski is a formidable suspect, the little we know. I wrote a recent article 'Safely Caged' in which I tried to detach Anderson from 'Anderson's suspect' to reveal the suspect as still compelling. Most people felt that I failed -- that with Anderson going down the gurgler in my unflattering assessment so did Kosminski.

[harry]

The fact that Lawende states he would not recogniise the man in future,does not necessarily mean he did not get a good look at the person.He might just be accepting,when he made that statement,that he could not honestly make an accurate memory identification.
Schwartz on the other hand,in graphically describing two men seen in poor light,after just a fleeting glance,is the one to be doubtfull about.

[Stewart P Evans]

Accurate

The only person who ever had a close and personal view of a suspect was Schwartz. Lawende clearly stated that he would not recognize the man again.
Pirate

Please be accurate in what you state. Lawende clearly said, "I doubt whether I should know him again." That is not 'clearly stating he would not recognise the man again.' And he gave a reasonable description.

Lawende's statement leaves the possibility that he might recognise the man if he saw him again (although he doubted it). Therefore, as per the press report of 18 February 1891, Lawende was used in the attempted identification of Sadler as the Ripper. A point which Sugden cites as obviating Schwartz as the witness.

All this, of course, doesn't mean that a positive identification would have been of any value at all after such a remove in time. It's far more likely that the police hoped that a positive identification might result in the suspect making a confession.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Stewart!

And even after that the police officials would probably have to had verified the details of the confession!

All the best
Jukka

[robhouse]

I think it is very important to be clear on this, and Stewart makes a very good point.

Just last night I was at a restaurant, and our waitress... I could describe her as being about 5' 5", with long brown hair, and of a medium build. Do I think I could identify her again? Maybe, but quite possibly not. Even though I saw her on at least 4 or 5 occasions over the course of two hours at close range in a well lit environment..

Lawende saw a man at a distance of some 10 feet or so (I dont have the exact distance), only once, in a poorly lit environment, and I doubt he paid much particular attention to him. What he said was probably very honest. It does not mean that he "would not recognise the man again." It means what he said, that he doubts he could... the implication being that he might or might not be able to identify the man.

RH

[Steven Russell]

Dear robhouse,
I think your point about the unreliability of witness statements is an excellent one. I have been thinking a great deal about this recently and trying to relate it to my everyday life. For example, if I have seen someone in the queue at the supermarket and made a concerted effort to observe them, I find that I could give a pretty good description and possibly (with help) an artist's impression of the person a day or two after the event.

If, however, after I have returned home without having charged myself with this task and been asked, "Describe the person in the queue in front of you", I would be hard pressed to recall any details at all - even as to the sex of the person since I was focussed on my groceries. Admittedly, I am not an observant person but studies have shown that eyewitness testimony is a slender thread on which to hang an argument.

The views of Anderson and Swanson are compelling, however, and I find it difficult to believe that either are lying through their teeth. But Swanson was merely giving his views on his old chief's writings and may not necessarily have agreed with them. He was an old campaigner commenting on the text of the book; his own theories about the case may have been quite different.

Do not misunderstand me. I have a great deal of time for Anderson and his theory. It just seems odd that everyone accepts that Swanson's notes mean that he agreed whole-heartedly with all that his old boss wrote. The "marginalia" could have represented Swanson's attempt to clarify the thoughts of Anderson.

Best wishes all,

Steve.

[Jonathan H]

Do not misunderstand me. I have a great deal of time for Anderson and his theory. It just seems odd that everyone accepts that Swanson's notes mean that he agreed whole-heartedly with all that his old boss wrote. The "marginalia" could have represented Swanson's attempt to clarify the thoughts of Anderson.


We seem to have a lot in common about this aspect of the mystery. I think that Swanson went to respectfully query Anderson, in 1910, about his Ripper claims in his memoirs -- and was quietly gobsmacked by the story he was told. Swanson knew it was a jumbled memory, a mishmash, a fusion of events and characters from 1888 and 1891, including Sadler, Lawende, Grainger, Mary Kelly, Frances Coles, Lawende -- and the Sailors Home mixed up with the Seaside Home.

Swanson went home and made the annotation because otherwise he was never going to remember this 'Anderson in Wonderland' nonsense. That is why the line 'Kosminski was the suspect' has neither the suspect's first name, nor is a definitive declaration of the Ripper's identity.

In fact it falls rather flat. It mimics the Macnaghten Report from 1894: no first name about just a 'suspect.

The desperate, insistent and superior tone of the Marginalia also sounds like Anderson talking, based on comparable by him.

That is just a theory. Perhaps it was the other way round? It started with Sanson and was told to the desk-bound Anderson -- who stuffed it up in his memoirs,

On the other hand, the only other comment I know by Swanson is from 1895, in the wake of the failure with Grainger [when probably Lawende said 'yes'] and he claims that the Ripper is probably dead. He writes the same in the Marginalia, fifteen years later, but if that is just repeating Anderson's shambolic recollection then the much earlier comment by Swanson could have referred to Druitt -- who was dead unlike Kosminski.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

What's the big problem with the possibility that Anderson, Macnaghten and the person who wrote parts of the 'Swanson' marginalia lied through their teeth?

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

In my opinion the problem with simply sweeping away these sources, as entirely the products of deceit is that, quite typically, the sources are an expression of all sorts of human foibles, motivations and agendas -- some of which have to do with the truth as the individual writer sees it.

The 'West of England MP' story of Feb 11th 1891 very probably shows that a belief in Druitt as the Ripper predated Macnaghten -- whatever his over-rated memory may have done to distort that original information, at least according to the conventional wisdom. Macnaghten in his 1914 memoirs arguably shows great honesty in admitting that this suspect -- un-named -- was only known to police several after he killed himself, matching the 'MP' source.

I believe that Swanson wrote the Marginalia entirely himself in 1910, or at last thereabouts. It is a private document not official. Therefore it can say what it likes, accurately or not. If Swanson was 'lying through his teeth' he never attempted to do so publicly. He never wrote a letter to the media supporting his old boss, who was under fire for a number of reasons, among them his Ripper claims. That is a very odd thing to do; make an annotation for nobody else's eyes but your own which you know to be bollocks -- unless you are recording what somebody else told you?

If Anderson was a liar he was a very inept and clumsy one. He told a story in 1910 [which had been building since 1895] that was easily refuted by lower echelon police such as Smith, Abberline and Reid. Moreover, it was a story which would cause anguish amongst Jews, a minority group whom he respected and from whom he proudly maintained individual friendships with -- all ruined! Anderson's Polish Jew Super-suspect did his reputation, personally and privately, no favors. He seems to have been a self-righteous, undoubtedly pompous man yet one who believed in telling the truth as he saw it -- as he imperfectly remembered it -- come what may.

Simply calling the lot of them unscrupulous liars is one way of looking at it, which is not terribly interesting and has nothing to with historical methodology.

[jason_c]

Hi All,

What's the big problem with the possibility that Anderson, Macnaghten and the person who wrote parts of the 'Swanson' marginalia lied through their teeth?

Regards,

Simon

One problem is that Macnaghten fingered Druitt. If all three lied you would think they would all suggest Kosminski as the killer. They didnt.

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan,
One point I want to make here is that Sir Henry Smith was not a "lower echelon". In fact,he was on a par with Sir Melville Macnaghten and Sir Robert Anderson.
Smith was the Chief Commissioner of The City of London Police .No underling, but simply, because the majority of murders ascribed to the ripper were in Whitechapel ,slightly on the sidelines as the Met had charge of the Ripper case under Sir Robert Anderson with Swanson in charge of collating the case.
With regards to Anderson"s relationship with the London Jewish Community, then Mentor,the editor of the Jewish Chronicle made it quite clear that Jewish people were highly offended by what Anderson had written.

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

Mentor wrote this in 1910 after seeing Anderson"s words in print. No equivocation.In this,his first response, he branded Anderson as an enemy of the Jewish people.....there is more and it gets worse and even when Anderson attempts to wriggle out of it, Mentor is having none of it.So no, Anderson may have claimed friendship but he did not impress the Jewish Community that he was in fact their friend, far from it,
Best
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jonathon

Firstly I would like to apologize for delay in reply. I have been very busy and just did not have time yesterday. I hope you don’t think me rude.

It is not that Anderson is mistaking Gentile Sadler for Aaron Kosminski. Rather it is that his fading memory has entirely eliminated the real events of 1891 which involved Frances Coles, Tom Sadler, Joseph Lawende and, at some point, Aaron Kosminski.


If by that you mean ‘fading memory’ as would happen to any human being then we are in total agreement. Although it seems apparent that Anderson must have kept some form of notation as reference that no longer survives.

Eliminated that the Ripper hunt continued much beyond 1889. That is what his memoirs claim and that is what the Marginalia claims -- if Swanson means that the Kelly murder was the final one.

I agree this is unclear

You can actually track how Anderson's memory is then redacting fragments of 1891 back into 1888 for a much more satisfying story [though its tone is bitter] which makes him look better, CID look better -- all about a mystery he thought was ludicrously over-rated and tabloid-driven. The Ripper murders do not even get a chapter to itself, nor does he bother with the victims' names. Why would he remember correctly?

But Anderson is not losing his mind. I've never suggested such a thing!

Right OK. We seem to be back to Anderson’s personality. Although it seems a point of irritation in general, I can only refer you back to Begg, who intern quotes Fido. And both men claim Anderson’s personality is complicated.

BEGG: “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. That assessment may be wrong, although it would appear soundly based in an understanding of the period,”

Having read the self-serving memoirs of dozens of others on many other historical subjects it is par for the course that episodes which are somewhat messy or unflattering are dressed up by ego and bias. Everybody I have ever read does this. Nothing to do with being geriatric or insane; just natural aging processes combined with the need to retrospectively justify.

As long as you’re comparing like with like. Anderson was a man of the 19thcentury, and needs to be judged as such.

You say the Marginalia is genuine as if I am questioning that fact. I assure I am not.

I apologize if I gave the impression you had. (There are those who post here who regularly drag this sad mantra up. It’s completely time wasting and avoidance of serious discussion).

What I am wondering [and for once I am not alone] is why Swanson wrote it, and where it actually comes from? Was it his own story, which he had passed onto the desk-bound Anderson and was thus correcting after his ex-chief had made a hash of it, or one he recorded from his ex-chief -- but did not necessarily believe? Either way the limitation of this unofficial source is that it may be providing us with repetition not confirmation.

I believe Stewart Evans has raised the possibility that Swanson was the more involved of the two. And that the marginalia is Swanson checking for Anderson errors. Ie Swanson is the originator of the story. I think that a reasonable observation.

What's interesting about the Crawford letter suggestion, is that it suggests Anderson was the originator and Swanson did his bidding.

I dont know I'm interested in the speculation however.

This does not knock out the Marginalia. Far from it. Another possibility is that the operational head of CID is confirming for us that Kosminski was the best bet to be the Ripper. That's possible. Yet it is not the only interpretation, and arguably is not the strongest either.

Agreed.

The Anderson/Swanson story, because it is contradicted by other primary and early secondary sources [inlcuding by themselves] requires people to choose.

Martin Fido chose to believe that these retired policemen setting the story of the Polish Jew suspect in 1888 was correct, but that they must have the identity wrong [eg. David Cohen] as it does not match Kosminski's much later incarceration [and that the police hospital was built in 1890].

I’ve never agreed with Martin Fido on this point. But I think Martin was working with what was understood about mental health at the time, 1980's. Understanding of serial killers has moved on.

Evans and Rumbelow [among others] in 2006 chose to accept that it was Kosminski, but that the timing has to be wrong as this man could not have been a suspect in 1888, be wandering around for two years, that there be a failed attempt to charge Sadler not only for Coles but as 'Jack' -- all AFTER Kosminski was supposedly positively identified!?

Yes again I do largely agree with Stewart on this point. I just don’t think the Sadler identification explains everything.

So my personal opinion is that there were two ID’s at this time. One with kosminski and Schwartz and one with Lawende and Sadler and there was confusion. But that is my opinion and no one else’s. I certainly cannot prove that.

Kosminski's emergence into the case must post-date his being institutionalized which the first version of Anderson's 1910 story inadvertently admitted, before being 'corrected' in the book version.


Which suggests Anderson worked from notes.

By that year Anderson had become quite confused. Not that he had mistaken Sadler for Kosminski -- but that he had forgotten the sailor's existence at all! And that the mystery's humiliating climax took place in 1891, let alone that Lawende said yes to Grainger as late as 1895, the year he face-savingly first alluded to the 'safely caged' suspect. This is completely typical and mundane of egotistical memoirists who are wont to both consciously and unconsciously reshape events which do not show their judgment in a positive light.

Clearly there was confusion. Although Andersons story is fairly simple and clear.

Look, check out that raging egoist Sarah Palin in her recent 'Going Rogue'. Would you call her old or geriatric [I'll leave out insane]? Her book is full of self-serving versions of alternate reality about any number of things, practically on every single page.

I’m sorry I know nothing about Sarah Palin and fail to see the connection.

That people like yourself see no need to choose, that everything about Anderson's version, confirmed by Swanson -- minus the odd minor error here and there, like the suspect still being alive and not twenty years dead -- is a simple, straight-forward account, a slam dunk, is for me the ultimate fantasy.

I’ve never Slam Dunked anything in my life. I wouldn’t be here considering the arguments if I did. However I do believe that the answers to the mystery are here, in these events, somewhere.

The ultimate conjecture.

You are right that I am biased towards Macnaghten-Druitt.

But you make this sound like some big shock-horror revelation.

Of course I am. We are all biased. Aren't you?


I wear two hats.

In defense of myself, I have argued against Macnaghten as a source on these message boards. That he knew nothing. That he over-rated his 'incredible' memory and foolishly acted as if he knew all. That he had one source on Druitt, an MP who was arguably a twit.

Macnaghten may have been a charming phony, but a phony nonetheless.

That Anderson may not have been a charmer, to put it mildly, but at least he was not a phony either. He was the honest, diligent, non-racist head of CID in 1888 and his opinion that a Polish Jew suspect trumped all others remains the titanium strength of Kosminski's plausibility as one of, if not the best, suspect.

I have also put counter-arguments against my own position about Druitt, and this is apparently such an unusual thing to do here, that some posters thought I had changed my mind -- or that I had no firm position at all?

Because I can entertain multiple arguments I actually think we do agree more than we disagree. Aaron Kosminski is a formidable suspect, the little we know. I wrote a recent article 'Safely Caged' in which I tried to detach Anderson from 'Anderson's suspect' to reveal the suspect as still compelling. Most people felt that I failed -- that with Anderson going down the gurgler in my unflattering assessment so did Kosminski.

Yes, we appear in broad agreement. Sometimes I like to play devils advocate and you require counter viewpoints for a good thread. Unfortunately they sometimes get heated and personal which is most regrettable (I’m not saying I’m not guilty of this ).

My personal belief is that Kosminski was ID’d. The most likely witness being Schwartz.

As has been pointed out most witness sightings are vague. I’ve been struck how similar in structure most of the description's are and wonder how much they are generated by the man taking the statement?

Height? Wearing? Face hair? Features? Colour? Etc.

But Schwartz was up close. I think only feet from the man when he stopped to talk to the woman just inside the gateway (right angle from Berner st) He was clearly afraid and I think the incident would be clear in his mind. I agree that you can’t remember the person in front of you at the super market, but I can clearly remember the people involved in my car accident five years ago.

Whether of course that makes Kosminski the Ripper, I can’t say, as I don’t know if Stride was a Ripper victim or not.

However Kosminski was a Schizophrenic. It’s therefore a possibility that he committed the crimes over a 16 week period called ‘psychotic episode’, and then stopped. As his condition worsened his ability to commit the crimes might also, stop. Once locked in an Asylum his known condition is consistent with schizophrenia. So for me, he’s a better suspect than Druitt, although I except that statistically a ‘manic depressive’ is more likely to have been the Ripper of the two.

Many thank for your interesting discussion

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Pirate Jeff

Thank-you for your constructive reply as to where we agree and disagree.

I'll post something else on this topic when I have time.

I would just say that I don't think that Anderson made any notation at all, or had notes, or that there was ever a file on Aaron Kosminski.

To Norma

Good counter-point about Sir Henry Smith being the admin. and class equal of Macnaghten and Anderson.

I still do not think Smith knew anything about Druitt or Kosminski because nobody did outside what may have been for a while, only Macnaghten and Anderson.

I subscribe to the position that Anderson admired Judaism, and had Hebrew pals [affable Mac claims no such friends outside of his narrow circle].

Therefore, as a source Anderson is arguably strong, from this angle, as he is going against his expected bias to accuse somebody who was Jewish. The understandable backlash he received due to his clumsy prose I think caused him a great deal of anguish and pain.

'Mentor' over-reached too: speculating that the Jewish witness would have hardly believed that a Jew could have been the fiend, and that is why he would not testify. Anderson's statesmanlike reply -- for him almost an apology -- was that a mass murderer can be produced by any class and any group, which is quite true [neither addresses the point that the alleged killer was offing women outside of his own ethnic sub-group].

I think that an ipso facto strength of Kosminski as the the Ripper is that Scotland Yard had managed to get through the Witechapel horrors without a riot, without a mob-driven pogrom, and without some innocent wretch being made the scapegoat in a rush to judgment.

Then, years later, Anderson seemed to spoil his excellent record, with what some perceived as an ugly, sectarian-driven myth of the Jew killer and the Judas witness.

To me this is an indication that for Anderson it was a sincere opinion -- at least in his mind -- that the Ripper WAS a Jew. The mitigating factor was that 'Jack' was from a low-class minority within a minority; the hideous human detritus of the East who refuse to accept the rule of law of their adopted country.

In other words Anderson would have preferred it not to be a Jew at all, but it was, and that was the truth -- as he remembered it.

[The Good Michael]

To me this is an indication that for Anderson it was a sincere opinion -- at least in his mind -- that the Ripper WAS a Jew.

But that doesn't mean of the Jewish religion, but only a Jew by ethnicity. That's wherein the problem lies; that people have difficulty separating the two, and it seems that Anderson was attacking a religion and not just an individual who happened to have Jewish ethnicity. Indeed, this goes on all the time today, where one cannot finger a person who is suspicious without being accused of an ethnic slur. The established Jewry, as we know, also had problems with the newer immigrant Jews who were not necessarily believers in God if the formation of the different workingman clubs was any indication.

Cheers,

Mike