Did Anderson Know

[Hunter]

I'm sorry for appearing redundant as I've made this point before, but to elaborate on Stewart's post a little... As Anderson stated, he was away when the first murder took place. Even when Abberline was called in to coordinate the various divisions' investigation after the Nichols murder, Anderson appears as a man who has other fish to fry (Fenians, other subversive groups, etc...) When Chapman was killed, the whole WM business blew up in his face. He never dreamed of the public outcry to follow and was forced to play catch up. Then, there's the double murder and Matthews' curt little communication. Now enters Dr. Bond, on Anderson's request, but he too vacilates until Mary Kelly is murdered. He gives Anderson a "profile" which Anderson accepts and runs with it. I believe the "insane Polish Jew theory" is a result of that profile and Anderson spends the rest of his life trying to put the peices of the puzzle together in some cohesive way to rationalize his behavior during the autumn of 1888.

As I've stated before, as far as the contemporaneous placement of suspects, the fact that Sadler was suspected in the Coles murder and an effort was made to link him with the others, shows where the investigation was- nowhere.

Even Abberline's sudden acceptance of George Chapman after his murder trial was a "Oh yea, he looks like he could have been JTR"- based on no real evidence- just a gut feeling. None of these guys had any real evidence on anyone.

[Stewart P Evans]

List

I don't see that we're in a position to say that, given the records we have. Considering Swanson's statement that the police had investigated more than 300 people by 19 October, the contemporary suspects whose names we know must be a tiny fraction of those who were under some kind of suspicion.
...
I think it's very difficult to reconcile these conflicting accounts. I don't know which is closer to the truth regarding the timing, but I don't think we have enough evidence to rule out the possibility that Kozminski came to the police's notice much closer to the period of the murders than is generally assumed.

And I have never ruled out the possibility that Kosminski's name came to the notice of the police at the time of the murders.

Indeed I have stated that during the house to house enquiries when they investigated 'the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret' there is every possibility that Kosminski fell into these criteria and was added to the list of very many names. It would, in fact, explain the comment 'And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.' In other words, when Kosminski finally emerged (probably in 1890) as a suspect (as per Macnaghten's 1894 report) the 1888 notebooks were checked and Kosminki's name was found listed in them as a man fitting the suspect criteria.

However, there were indeed hundreds of persons investigated and many 'suspects' in name only. But what I am stating is that he was not considered a serious, specific, suspect at the time of the murders as the extant reports show.

More germane to this debate, however, is the question of whether Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' claim is correct or not. Hence the gallons of ink expended in lengthy debates over Anderson's character and veracity. The pro-Anderson lobby are the ones, after all, who claim that he could not lie in a published work and, as late as 2004 in The Facts we have Paul Begg quoting Martin Fido, and stating that "...the author Martin Fido rejected any idea that Anderson would lie in self-interest: 'Now one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster . . . and would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force's reputation...'..."

Does anyone actually believe that? I certainly don't and as a result of these sustained claims about Anderson we have seen many debates, such as this one, trying to draw a true picture of Anderson's character and the value of his writings. The two sides are polarized and it seems there never will be any real middle ground. Setting out the various writings and arguments does, I hope, lead to a better understanding and gives the objective reader the opportunity to assess all that is available and then to draw his own conclusion. The old saying goes that 'there is none so blind as he who cannot see', and personal prejudices, agendas, theories, experience, etc. all conspire to vex the issue even further. In the final assessment it is a question of whether or not Anderson was right because, and make no mistake about it, if he was wrong then the Kosminski theory has no more going for it than the case for Druitt, or any other similar suspect.

[Hunter]

The old saying goes that 'there is none so blind as he who cannot see', and personal prejudices, agendas, theories, experience, etc. all conspire to vex the issue even further. .

And that is what hampered this case then and still does to this day. When one tries to wrap evidence around theories instead of the other way around, we will get the same results time after time.

[Stewart P Evans]

Problem

The problem with these debates is that you always end up repeating yourself. I suppose that is the nature of an impasse. Part of the problem is also that certain people do not internalise the known facts.

In the summer of 1889 interview Anderson spoke only of "our failure to find Jack the Ripper". In the summer of 1892 Anderson stated of the murders "It is impossible to believe they were the acts of a sane man", and concluded the murderer was "a maniac revelling in blood" but nothing about him being locked away. Anderson's theory that the Ripper was "a homicidal maniac" and that his "career was cut short by committal to an asylum" did not appear until 1895. It was not until 1910, some 22 years after the murders that Anderson claimed his 'theory' to be 'a definitely ascertained fact.' Perhaps more of Anderson's statements will come to light in this age of digital searching.

I have always regarded this as a sort of progression from theory (mid-1890s) to fact (1910). In effect, in 1910, Anderson is saying "We may not have arrested Jack the Ripper and brought him to justice but it really didn't matter as we knew who he was and he was safely locked away." To his mind a satisfactory rejoinder to those who would criticise or disparage him or his CID.

[Trevor Marriott]

It should also be noted that Andersons honesty and integrity were brought in question in later years by Supt Mallon of The Dublin Police.

Mallon was the Offficer in charge of the Phoenix Park Murders. Anderson would have worked closely with Mallon in his spymaster role.

So if we have a senior officer from another force suggesting that anything Anderson suggested or wrote was not safe to rely on we should tread carefully.

In the current scheme of things I will re iterate what i have said previous that anything all of the police officers have stated in later years regarding the various suspects should not be relied upon. There is no corroboration to their statements of opinion which appear to have been made for their own ulterior motives.

Jonathan you should give it up now. I admire your tenacity and enthusiasm but the reality is that Kosminsky remains a supect purely in name only and in my opinion is one of a number who should be deleted from the list altogther.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Anderson's story about the Ripper being "a homicidal maniac" whose "career was cut short by committal to an asylum" did not appear until a year after Macnaghten's memorandum.

If you hate coincidence and believe Anderson, then for Macnaghten to have included Kosminski in his memorandum the Polish Jew must have become "a definitely ascertained fact" prior to February 1894 but after the summer of 1892 when Anderson was telling readers of Cassell's Saturday Journal that the murderer was "a maniac revelling in blood."

Going from this, the earliest the Polish Jew could have become "a definitely ascertained fact" is after June 1892, by which time Kosminski had been in Colney Hatch for sixteen months.

It's plain to see that Anderson's 1910 chicken was hatched from Macnaghten's 1894 egg. So forget Anderson. The real question we should be asking is where Macnaghten found his Polish Jew and, if his guilt was "a definitely ascertained fact", why he was lumped in with two other suspects as only "more likely" [than Cutbush] of being the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

As far as the idea of certain information being known only to certain officials at Scotland Yard. I am basing this supposition on the Swanson Marginalia. Where Swanson writes "Known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID" underlining the word "head" twice. It has always been assumed apparently that this was a reference to the previous sentence about the Dear Boss letter... however, I do not think that this is so clear. It is at least as possible that Swanson was referring to the entire gist of the paragraph, in which Anderson notes that "not even subordinate officers will tell tales out of school." Swanson may have been remarking on the fact that no subordinate officers knew that the CID chief had come to the conclusion that he knew the identity of the Ripper.

Again, I do not think Anderson actually knew this as a definitely ascertained fact, despite the fact that he said so. I think he was convinced Kozminski was the Ripper, but clearly he did not know it, because if he did, then presumably he would have had proof which would hold up in court. He did not. The likely solution is that he had circumstantial evidence or the statements of informants, combined perhaps with Kozminski's reaction upon being "identified". This, combined with aspects of Kozminski's personality may have convinced Anderson (and perhaps Anderson alone) of Kozminski's guilt. Swanson may not have agreed with him, and either way, the case remained open... hence the Sadler inquiries etc. Again, please see the Green River case. Reichart was convinced Ridgeway was the killer... absolutely convinced. But they did not have the hard evidence until years later. AND other senior detectives working the case preferred other suspects.

And again, I do not see that there is any evidence showing when Kozminski became a strong suspect. It is certainly possible as Stewart states that it was in 1890, when he was first brought to the workhouse. However, I also think there is conflicting evidence suggesting it may have been earlier... Macnaghten for one, and Henry Cox for another.

Rob H

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

From Stewart..

Does anyone actually believe that? I certainly don't and as a result of these sustained claims about Anderson we have seen many debates, such as this one, trying to draw a true picture of Anderson's character and the value of his writings.

Again I say thank you Stewart... another part that imho, helps to nail this discussion. We have, all of us, to be honest here about Anderson, whether we BELIEVE him or not to be 100% correct in his assumptions, has a KNOWN flawed character, and his writings, epitomised by the 1910 book effort, shows an ego trip in spades.

Anderson never had a jot of proof for his comment about the true identity of JTR. And THAT, shows a flawed character itself... a policeman of very high rank..WITHOUT evidence of proof.. labelling a man of being the worst serial murderer ever seen? Without a jot of proof? Not exactly typical of sound police methods for catching criminals is it?

The man regards himself above the law (by his own admittance) and we are asked to believe this man's comments as RELIABLE? Without proof?

No, I can only see two crystal clear reasons for his comment. The capping of his career with the ultimate compliment to himself.. "I know who JTR was and all was under control. But sssshhhh.. I can't tell you more...it wouldn't be in the best interests of my old department.... " and to have one last little spymaster roll of the dice...with everyone.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Definitely

Again I point out that the importance of Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' cannot be denied. It lifts his claim above a simple theory, or even opinion, and carries it into the realms of fact. The all important word is 'definitely' - it allows for no equivocation or doubt. It is decisive and final. This, and Anderson's position, is what has made his claim that the police actually knew who the Ripper was so significant.

The matter of prime importance to Anderson in 1888-1889 was the Parnell Commission and the Unionist efforts to implicate Parnell in condoning acts of terrorism and, specifically, the Phoenix Park murders of 1882. The action in respect of The Times 1887 revelations about Parnell were uppermost in Anderson's mind - and would remain so. This was a huge smear campaign against Parnell and his Home Rule movement party. Anderson was there at the forefront in this vilification and was, as we know, responsible for the anonymous series of 'Parnellism and Crime Behind the Scenes in America' articles in The Times in May-June 1887. After the Commission concluded Parnell was vindicated and the incriminating 'Parnell letters' were shown to be forgeries created by the journalist and friend of Parnell, Richard Pigott, who later committed suicide.

So the two most pressing and important matters on Anderson's mind in 1888-1889 were the Parnell Commission and the Whitechapel murders. And both these matters would stay near the top of his agenda in subsequent years and become the subject of his writings in 1906-1910. In his 1906 (and 1907) book Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement he would still be trying to connect Parnell with the incriminating letter of May 15 1882 which showed that Parnell condoned the murder of Burke. Three years later Anderson's The Lighter Side of My Official Life was published.

So here we have two major secular works of Anderson's published within three years and touching upon his two pet subjects, the Parnell Commission and the Whitechapel murders. What is interesting to note is the fact that in the 1907 book Anderson makes a statement regarding the forged Parnell letter stating he had "definite confirmation of my statement" that Pigott did not forge the May 15 1882 letter, it was actually forged by an Arthur O'Keefe who was employed by Parnell as an amanuensis at the time the letter was written -



The similarity of the two claims, the 'definite confirmation' of 1907 and the 'definitely ascertained fact' of 1910 cannot be gainsaid. In neither case does Anderson produce any evidence to support the 'definite' nature of his statements and history has recorded that he was wrong in claiming that Pigott did not forge the said Parnell letter. So what value do we put on his claim that the identity of the Ripper was a 'definitely ascertained fact'? It is high time that certain people admitted that there is no good reason to blindly accept Anderson at his word in these matters. When Anderson got an idea into head there was no shifting it. A bit like some others I can think of.

[Trevor Marriott]

Again I point out that the importance of Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact' cannot be denied. It lifts his claim above a simple theory, or even opinion, and carries it into the realms of fact. The all important word is 'definitely' - it allows for no equivocation or doubt. It is decisive and final. This, and Anderson's position, is what has made his claim that the police actually knew who the Ripper was so significant.

The matter of prime importance to Anderson in 1888-1889 was the Parnell Commission and the Unionist efforts to implicate Parnell in condoning acts of terrorism and, specifically, the Phoenix Park murders of 1882. The action in respect of The Times 1887 revelations about Parnell were uppermost in Anderson's mind - and would remain so. This was a huge smear campaign against Parnell and his Home Rule movement party. Anderson was there at the forefront in this vilification and was, as we know, responsible for the anonymous series of 'Parnellism and Crime Behind the Scenes in America' articles in The Times in May-June 1887. After the Commission concluded Parnell was vindicated and the incriminating 'Parnell letters' were shown to be forgeries created by the journalist and friend of Parnell, Richard Pigott, who later committed suicide.

So the two most pressing and important matters on Anderson's mind in 1888-1889 were the Parnell Commission and the Whitechapel murders. And both these matters would stay near the top of his agenda in subsequent years and become the subject of his writings in 1906-1910. In his 1906 (and 1907) book Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement he would still be trying to connect Parnell with the incriminating letter of May 15 1882 which showed that Parnell condoned the murder of Burke. Three years later Anderson's The Lighter Side of My Official Life was published.

So here we have two major secular works of Anderson's published within three years and touching upon his two pet subjects, the Parnell Commission and the Whitechapel murders. What is interesting to note is the fact that in the 1907 book Anderson makes a statement regarding the forged Parnell letter stating he had "definite confirmation of my statement" that Pigott did not forge the May 15 1882 letter, it was actually forged by an Arthur O'Keefe who was employed by Parnell as an amanuensis at the time the letter was written -

[ATTACH]8665[/ATTACH]

The similarity of the two claims, the 'definite confirmation' of 1907 and the 'definitely ascertained fact' of 1910 cannot be gainsaid. In neither case does Anderson produce any evidence to support the 'definite' nature of his statements and history has recorded that he was wrong in claiming that Pigott did not forge the said Parnell letter. So what value do we put on his claim that the identity of the Ripper was a 'definitely ascertained fact'? It is high time that certain people admitted that there is no good reason to blindly accept Anderson at his word in these matters. When Anderson got an idea into head there was no shifting it. A bit like some others I can think of.

Thank you Stewart for putting more meat on the bone in relation to Anderson and the view of Supt Mallon of The Dublin Police which i briefley reported in a previous post

[Stewart P Evans]

Wonderful Phrases

I still love those wonderful phrases about Anderson that appeared in the Dublin Press of March 1889, at least someone saw through him -

"...this most mysterious and anomalous of officials, who has been dragged forth from his hole by the Le Caron scandal, and who appears to be most unhappy under the glare of publicity."

"But what a splendid specimen of the scrupulous and impartial officials with whom the Irish Party has to deal is this Mr. Anderson. How truthful and candid he is with respect to his transactions with the Times."

"Mr. Anderson is one of those gentlemen whose misstatements it is needless to characterise, for in two successive paragraphs of his letter he gives the lie to himself."

"Is this 'amicus and expert' in the habit of sending important letters unsigned - except for some reason?"

"Now that Mr. Anderson has been got into the open a good many questions will be put to him, and he will for the first time in his mole-like official career serve a useful public purpose."

[robhouse]

Hello Stewart,

As I think you know, I have never claimed that Anderson is any type of saintly person, who is above lying, making mistakes, etc. My real problem with this sort of reasoning is that it is a perfect example of an ad hominem argument.

Rob H

[Stewart P Evans]

The Written Word

Hello Stewart,
As I think you know, I have never claimed that Anderson is any type of saintly person, who is above lying, making mistakes, etc. My real problem with this sort of reasoning is that it is a perfect example of an ad hominem argument.
Rob H

I don't quite follow your reasoning. I am presenting the written word of others, including Anderson himself, which some who read these boards may not be aware of. What are you claiming is an ad hominem argument? Everything I have written or the words of the Dublin press?

As you well know I have long argued that others, for many years, published only the pro-Anderson writings and articles and he has been presented as 'having a peculiarly scrupulous regard for the truth' (really?), 'would never have lied directly' and, in his writings, 'to be both honest and accurate'. I do not agree. So what are you objecting to? Or is it okay for some to draw a picture of Anderson as 'honest and accurate' in his writings so we can all safely believe in what he says as regards the Ripper, whilst others must not portray a negative side to him in order to show that his word may not be so blindly accepted?

No doubt you subscribe to the view in the A-Z where we are warned that "persistent attempts to disprove his statements by denigrating his character are almost on a par with the outdated game of abusing and dismissing the police as a whole (and Warren in particular) in order to allow irresponsible theorising from some other source."

Sorry, I simply do not agree with that but I do believe in providing the full picture so that others may draw their own conclusions, which I am sure they are intelligent enough to do.

[Stewart P Evans]

Head Officers

As far as the idea of certain information being known only to certain officials at Scotland Yard. I am basing this supposition on the Swanson Marginalia. Where Swanson writes "Known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID" underlining the word "head" twice. It has always been assumed apparently that this was a reference to the previous sentence about the Dear Boss letter... however, I do not think that this is so clear. It is at least as possible that Swanson was referring to the entire gist of the paragraph, in which Anderson notes that "not even subordinate officers will tell tales out of school." Swanson may have been remarking on the fact that no subordinate officers knew that the CID chief had come to the conclusion that he knew the identity of the Ripper.
...
Rob H

Who do you think that 'Scotland Yard head officers of CID' refers to?

I would beg to differ on the interpretation of this annotation. Anderson's text begins a new sentence, and subject, with the words "So I will only add here that the 'Jack the Ripper' letter which is preserved in the Police Museum at New Scotland Yard is the creation of an enterprising London journalist." To which sentence Swanson adds "Known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID." This, indeed, ties in with what Littlechild wrote in his letter to Sims about the name 'Jack the Ripper' i.e. "it was generally believed at the Yard" that Bullen (Bulling) and Moore of the Central News were responsible.

[Jeff Leahy]

The invention of supposed pro and anti Anderson camps doesn’t really hold much water. Begg has for years pointed out the complex arguments when concidering Andersons character.

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,”

Pirate