Did Anderson Know

[Stephen Thomas]

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

Yes Stewart, and I believe him

But sadly no names no pack drill.

[Stewart P Evans]

Right

Yes Stewart, and I believe him
But sadly no names no pack drill.

Right, but why do you believe him?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I don't believe Anderson's definitely ascertained fact.

I don't believe it because in TLSOMOL Anderson didn't tell the truth about certain other things.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=Stewart P Evans;127694]Surely this all revolves around Anderson's claim that the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' was 'a definitely ascertained fact'?

Hello Stewart, all,

Thank you again...Indeed, and as I have said before, surely, the only answers to..Did Anderson know? are...

1. If he DID know, he produced no proof.
2. If he only thought he knew, he had no proof.
3. If he didn't know, it doesn't matter.

Until someone comes out with absolute proof that he did know, we can only put that he MAY have thought he knew, or that he didn't know and was trying to convince others, for whatever reason, and that includes vanity, self image, egoism etc etc.

Without proof of his "suspicions", and given Anderson's known bending of the truth, his self admittance to bending the law, etc etc etc, I believe this puts Andersons comments into the catagory of "unreliable."

Especially if the person has other agendae. Notably, egoism, and the desire to project something in order for no one to become suspicious of what he was really up to... ..yup...Anderson, spymaster.

best wishes

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

Right, but why do you believe him?

Hi Stewart

This argument has been going on for yonks as you well know.

Why do I believe him?

Because he had no need to say what he said if it wasn't true.

No need at all.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Stewart

This argument has been going on for yonks as you well know.

Why do I believe him?

Because he had no need to say what he said if it wasn't true.

No need at all.

Are you being serious Stephen? If you are then think seriously about when it was that Anderson decided to go public . It was in 1910 when his autobiography came out.
Sir Robert Anderson, his future readership [of that autobiography ] would no doubt recall, was the Police officer in charge of the Ripper investigation . So how come the Ripper was NEITHER caught or EVEN a suspect for these crimes brought up for trial?

But what does that look like to a public readership -a discerning one at that ?
So SRA provided his nifty, blow me down, solution, ----all signed, sealed and delivered for public consumption.It was the Polish Jew, stupid!

Anderson had every need to defend his reputation at that point in time.

[Jonathan H]

In my opinion Anderson did indeed have a need to claim, in retirment and end even earlier, that he had 1) successfully indentified the murderer, and 2) provided an excuse as to why he was then not brought to justice [Anderson provides two: a Judas witness and that the suspect was sectioned].

He had a need to always be right -- it's practically in his personality's DNA. Check out his entire memoirs to see what I mean. All memoirs are self-serving but his are particularly so -- almost a self-satire on mean-spirited pomposity.

Yet a biased, self-justifying need is not the same as being willfully deceitful.

I think that if Aaron Kosminski had not come into the frame -- but only in 1891 and by then excruciatingly too late -- then Anderson would have left it at as a mystery; a very, very minor one at that from his pov.

In my opinion a common error is to see the competing police suspects in isolation from each other. True, that is how Anderson and Macnaghten treat them in their memoirs but that was part of a suspect feud, about which we can only see glimpses.

I think that two of the reasons Anderson fastened onto Kosminski are 1) this man's name had appeared on the 1888 hovel search, and that eventually led Anderson into the fundamental error of redacting police knowledge of this Polish Jew back into that year, and 2) Druitt was his despised subordinate's preferred suspect and that was enough to sink him as the fiend, no pun intended.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

Anderson defended his reputation right to the bitter end.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Right on Simon!
Best
Norma

[Hunter]

Are you being serious Stephen? If you are then think seriously about when it was that Anderson decided to go public . It was in 1910 when his autobiography came out.
Sir Robert Anderson, his future readership [of that autobiography ] would no doubt recall, was the Police officer in charge of the Ripper investigation . So how come the Ripper was NEITHER caught or EVEN a suspect for these crimes brought up for trial?

But what does that look like to a public readership -a discerning one at that ?
So SRA provided his nifty, blow me down, solution, ----all signed, sealed and delivered for public consumption.It was the Polish Jew, stupid!

Anderson had every need to defend his reputation at that point in time.

Well said, Norma

Jonathan
In my opinion a common error is to see the competing police suspects in isolation from each other. True, that is how Anderson and Macnaghten treat them in their memoirs but that was part of a suspect feud, about which we can only see glimpses.

That was it. It was a suspect feud and if Jack the Ripper was still alive at that time and was a literate man, he was laughing his ass off.

I just love all of these 'suspect based theorist" who, once they have their man, they're forced to either bend the evidence, or simply ignore it. As I've stated in an earlier post, according to Swanson, the City CID was watching the Kosminski home. If Smith didn't know about this and the results of that investigation then he was an incompetent chief of police- and I don't think he was. He, like everybody else that writes about their involvement in events may have embelished his stories as well, but, he was at least man enough in the end to admit that Jack the Ripper got away with the crimes he commited and we don't know, to this day, who the hell he was- but I realize that does not make good copy.

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[ATTACH]8662[/ATTACH]

Fantastic entertainment, thanks one and all

But I don’t believe we have gone anywhere.

Apart from Stewart bring us back to basics that is? thanks

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

And it It was certainly GOOD COPY !

Well said, Norma





That was it. It was a suspect feud and if Jack the Ripper was still alive at that time and was a literate man, he was laughing his ass off.

I just love all of these 'suspect based theorist" who, once they have their man, they're forced to either bend the evidence, or simply ignore it. As I've stated in an earlier post, according to Swanson, the City CID was watching the Kosminski home. If Smith didn't know about this and the results of that investigation then he was an incompetent chief of police- and I don't think he was. He, like everybody else that writes about their involvement in events may have embelished his stories as well, but, he was at least man enough in the end to admit that Jack the Ripper got away with the crimes he commited and we don't know, to this day, who the hell he was- but I realize that does not make good copy.

Trouble is Hunter they get lost up their own asses! But seriously speaking you are sooooo spot on here!
And I so love the fact that not one of those who talk about this "so called " CITY POLICE SUSPECT has answered your question! Why didnt Smith give this "City Police Suspect" time of day----when he was in charge of the entire City of London Police force and would have known all the facts?

Lets see if anyone can give a good answer to that------without trashing Smith which so far is the only answer they try to get away with and which ofcourse is no answer.

[Phil Carter]

Apart from Stewart bring us back to basics that is? thanks

Pirate

Hello Jeff,

That is exactly why I responded by thanking Stewart and responded with the basics.

...the only answers to..Did Anderson know? are...

1. If he DID know, he produced no proof.
2. If he only thought he knew, he had no proof.
3. If he didn't know, it doesn't matter.

Until someone comes out with absolute proof that he did know, we can only put that he MAY have thought he knew, or that he didn't know and was trying to convince others, for whatever reason....

That, basically, is the be all and end all..... as far as we are aware of as of the present day. Unless someone else is sitting on evidence to prove otherwise?

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

Anderson defended his reputation right to the bitter end.

The Lighter Side Of My Official Life, page 281—

"I retired when I did for the excellent reason that after forty busy years I felt a strong desire for a more restful life. And, moreover, I had nothing to gain by remaining longer in office."

The perfect end to the perfect career.

Whereas, in fact, in February 1901 Anderson was sacked/fired/let go/asked to resign as Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, CID.

He kept that one quiet.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

I can give a very simple answer to it, without trashing Smith. Simply, it is quite possible that the most crucial aspects of the Kozminski inquiry were known only to a select few people at Scotland Yard. The City CID were used for surveillance on Kozminski, but this apparently produced no incriminating evidence against the suspect. In short, whatever it was that convinced Anderson of Kozminski's guilt may not have been known to Smith. (It is quite possible that the Swanson marginalia supports this conjecture, which I have pointed out several times already.) The important aspects of Kozminski as a suspect were almost certainly known to Swanson, although whether or not Swanson agreed with Anderson's opinion is unknown.

Also, as I have said several times, it is quite natural and normal for various police officials working a case like this to be in disagreement over their preferred suspects. Again, the Green River Killer inquiry is a good example of this. Whether Anderson actually knew or only thought he knew is unknown... I have always been inclined to think that what Anderson said was a "definitely ascertained fact" was in reality a very strong suspicion... strong enough to satisfy Anderson's personal criteria for "moral proof," which was mentioned on several occasion in Anderson's discussions on the suspect. This is a fairly straight forward interpretation of what was said in my opinion, and I do not think any of it it is very confusing.

RH