Did Anderson Know

[Stephen Thomas]

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.

Exactly Jon and well said.

He could easily have gone down MM's 'JTR was never caught' route

And chose not to against his best interests.

[jason_c]

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

None of which makes Andersons statement wrong.

And since when did the editor of The Jewish Chronicle speak for the entire Jewish community?

[jason_c]

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

I very much agree.


"In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of the brute."

[Natalie Severn]

Jason,
I dont know what you mean by "wrong"?
Mentor is quite clear,if you read his entire first statement:
Anderson presents to the public a "low class Polish Jew" as Jack the Ripper but about his" SUPPOSED" "suspect" Anderson presents NOT A SHADOW OF PROOF OF HIS GUILT [just a load of racist nonsense about how,because it is a fact, he states,that such "low class Polish Jews" dont allow one of their own to face " Gentile " justice Jack the Ripper was able to defeat justice -presumably because he was hurriedly incarcerated [again by these law breaking Jews]

This is such a lot of stuff and nonsense isnt it just!----Bah!

And how do you know the Jewish Chronicle did not present the majority view of the Jewish people?

[Natalie Severn]

To GM,
The Editor of the Jewish Chronicle made it very clear in his response to Anderson"s "semi" apology that he

TOTALLY ACCEPTED THAT OFCOURSE ANY RACE or RELIGION or COMMUNITY COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE RIPPER


That is not what Mentor"s point was at all. His point was about the selection of a Jewish suspect who had been supposedly protected from Gentile Justice, moreover a suspect about whom there was not a shadow of proof EVER!!! and whats more a suspect who had never been brought to trial.

[The Good Michael]

Natalie,

What was Mentor, a Jew going to say about it all? "Yes, it very probably was a Jew that did it." No way! His statement is meaningless as some sort of evidence against Anderson. It was clearly a way to protect his people.

Mike

[Hunter]

All of this seems to revolve around the belief that either Anderson or Macnaghten had privileged information in regards to the name of JTR, depending on whether you believe him to be Druitt or Kosminski. The factual errors that are in both accounts are dismissed for various complicated reasons. All along, Major Smith is seen as "out of the loop" so to speak, as he flat out admitted that the killer's identity was still unknown.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the City CID who was supposed to have watched Kosminsky's brother's house; Lawende being a City witness and all. Well if that's the case, it would be hard for me to believe that their chief of police wouldn't be privy to any suspecting Kosminsky or the eventual results thereof.

[Natalie Severn]

by the Chief Commissioner of City of London Police

So The Good Michael believes that Mentor"s statement is meaningless

"because he is a Jew?" ......whatever next !!!!


B]Sir Henry Smith[/B]:
quoting from his autobiography of 1910:
" Surely Sir Robert cannot believe that while the Jews,as he asserts,were entering into this conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice,there was noone among them with sufficient knowledge of the criminal law to warn them of the risks they were running?


And Smith adds -as a footnote to the above:

"In murder cases accessories after the fact----are liable to penal servitude for life;and thus the Jews of the East End against whom Sir Robert Anderson has made his reckless accusation, come under that category."

Smith was having none of it.He states very unequivocally the [B] "The Police did not know in 1888 who the ripper was or where he lived and they did not know twenty years later who the Ripper was or where he lived-----"HE HAD US ALL COMPLETELY BEAT" he stated "/B] .


If Anderson knew then Smith and Macnaghten would have known and its very obvious they didnt have the remotest idea who the Ripper was!

[Steven Russell]

Dear Pirate Jack,
I take your point entirely that memory is stronger, and therefore more reliable, with regard to traumatic as opposed to mundane events.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[Stephen Thomas]

If Anderson knew then Smith and Macnaghten would have known and its very obvious they didnt have the remotest idea who the Ripper was!

Hi Norma

So 2-1 to S and M

I'll go with Anderson and make it an Archbishop Desmond

[Natalie Severn]

Ok Stephen!
But it wasnt 2-1 was it?

Macnaghten went for Druitt----meaning he didnt think Anderson was correct.

Littlechild went for Tumblety---saying Anderson only thought he knew,

Abberline ,like Smith said that nobody was any wiser 15 years later.

Cheers

Norma

[Natalie Severn]

All of this seems to revolve around the belief that either Anderson or Macnaghten had privileged information in regards to the name of JTR, depending on whether you believe him to be Druitt or Kosminski. The factual errors that are in both accounts are dismissed for various complicated reasons. All along, Major Smith is seen as "out of the loop" so to speak, as he flat out admitted that the killer's identity was still unknown.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the City CID who was supposed to have watched Kosminsky's brother's house; Lawende being a City witness and all. Well if that's the case, it would be hard for me to believe that their chief of police wouldn't be privy to any suspecting Kosminsky or the eventual results thereof.

An excellent point Hunter and one which nobody else addresses-ie if indeed Kosminski, was the City Suspect as is the most likely scenario,then he was roundly trashed as a suspect by Sir Henry Smith, who sees him as so unlikely a suspect that he devotes a page and a half hooting with laughter at the mere idea and at the thought of Sir Robert Anderson seriously constructing such a "nonsensical" scenario about the Polish Jewish Community of Whitechapel!

[jason_c]

Jason,
I dont know what you mean by "wrong"?
Mentor is quite clear,if you read his entire first statement:
Anderson presents to the public a "low class Polish Jew" as Jack the Ripper but about his" SUPPOSED" "suspect" Anderson presents NOT A SHADOW OF PROOF OF HIS GUILT [just a load of racist nonsense about how,because it is a fact, he states,that such "low class Polish Jews" dont allow one of their own to face " Gentile " justice Jack the Ripper was able to defeat justice -presumably because he was hurriedly incarcerated [again by these law breaking Jews]

This is such a lot of stuff and nonsense isnt it just!----Bah!

And how do you know the Jewish Chronicle did not present the majority view of the Jewish people?

Im glad you at least changed the wording and used the word majority. Earlier you claimed The Jewish Chronicle editor represented Jewish community, as if it was a monolithic body. You are just as guilty of Anderson-think.

Neither of us know what the majority opinion was. At a guess i'd say a significant part of the Jewish community(probably the most vocal section) was offended by Andersons statement.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Norma

We go back a while with our Cutbush work and our affection towards AP

However, Anderson may just have been telling the truth

That's philosophy not history

Others could well have been lying

Or not in the loop

[Stewart P Evans]

Surely?

Surely this all revolves around Anderson's claim that the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' was 'a definitely ascertained fact'?