Did Anderson Know

[Observer]

From "The Lighter side of my official life"

"For I may say at once that " undiscovered murders " are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper " crimes are not within that category. And if the Police here had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice. Scotland Yard can boast that not even the subordinate officers of the department will tell tales out of school, and it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service. 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.

Having regard to the interest attaching to this case, I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter above referred to. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer."


Andersons "old deparment" suffered the moment he revealed the above. Sure he didnt reveal the name of the murderer, or the Jack the Ripper letter writer, but if he truly did not want his old department to suffer, wouldn't it have been better to say nothing at all? I think the criticism the police took for not apprehending the Whitechapel murderer, and Andersons sense of failure prompted Anderson to reveal what he did. I personaly do not think that Anderson was as sure of the identity of the murderer as he made out.

all the best

Observer

[Natalie Severn]

So Jack the Ripper wasnt dangerous? Tell that to the women he murdered

Yes Yes , exactly you are getting it..

SCHIZOPHRENICS ARE NOT DANGEROUS.

Dont be stupid please Jeff.

Jack the Ripper was a highly dangerous criminal who murdered and mutilated women.

Aaron Kosminski was a man who was placed not in an asylum for the criminally insane as Jack the Ripper would have been but in an ordinary asylum.This tells you a lot actually.


Or are you actually stating that Jack the ripper was not dangerous?

Cant you see how contradictory your statement are?

[Jeff Leahy]

Or are you actually stating that Jack the ripper was not dangerous?

Cant you see how contradictory your statement are?

Your still not getting this?

I'm stating Schizophrenics are NOT dangerous.

Under certain circumstance (which are very rare) they can become very dangerous indeed. Especially in the early stages of 'psychotic' episode (which again is very rare)

However Schizophrenia alone is unlikely to have been the only cause. You are also looking for other cause and effect. Probably a mixture of stuff.

Could be childhood trauma? Drugs most probably alcohol. Could be a food allergy? but other contributing factors would be typical. Once removed or isolated the subject returns to a non violent state. Psychotic episodes typically only last about 16 weeks.

As you said in an earlier post, modern drugs make it difficult to draw comparisons with 1888. Someone like Sutcliff is today drugged. But basically completely harmless. The idea that schizophrenics are in straight jackets forming at the mouth is rather old hat. Yes they can do so for short periods. But bye and large they are non violent.

Thre are many people suffering schizophrenia who function perfectly well in society today. You probably all know someone its quite common.

So yes I am saying that in a way Jack the Ripper was probably fairly harmless. Unfortunately for his victims he clearly became a huge danger for a small period of time. i've read reports hinting at possibilities. Hormone and testosterone levels have been linked with violence in the illness. I've even read reports that suggest genetic possibilities. But its still largely unknown. Post mortum mutilators are very rare indeed. We are hardly knee high in the streets with body parts are we?

But what is known of Aaron's condition is consistent with schizophrenia. It would therefore be expected as norm that he would be harmless once removed from the environment and factors that gave rise to the psychotic episodes associated with any violence.

Schizophrenics like Aaron burn out at around 32. They just go into a non conscious state. Completely harmless. A danger only to themselves.

So yes it may disappoint you guys but if Jack the Ripper was, if a schizophrenic, probably, by and large, not very violent once through his initial psychotic attacks. every case is different and has to be judged individually but there are norms that can be considered.

There is nothing inconsistent with Aron being harmless and a potential threat early in his illness.

Pirate

[Archaic]

Richard Dadd, Paranoid Schizophrenic, Great Artist, & Cut-Throat

Hi Jeff.
You might find the case of Richard Dadd interesting. In case you aren't familiar with him, he was a famous Victorian artist best known for his incredibly detailed paintings of fairies. (They are mind-blowing, believe me.) Dadd was also a Paranoid Schizophrenic who as a young man began to 'hear voices' and sadly murdered his own father. He tragically cut his father's throat with a knife while going through a schizoid episode.

Dadd was declared insane and interned first at the Bethlem Asylum (aka 'Bedlam'), then moved to the new facility at Broadmoor, where he painted some of his greatest masterpieces. if you google him some of those works will come up; 'The Fairy Feller's Mastersrtoke' is the most famous.

I personally believe the Ripper wasn't insane and wasn't schizophrenic, I think he was a Sexual Psychopath more along the lines of Ted Bundy, but Dadd is really a fascinating example of how Schizophrenics can be gentle and artistic then suffer paranoid delusions and commit acts of violence.

Here's a few links if anybody's interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dadd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fairy_Feller%27s_Master-Stroke

http://www.noumenal.com/marc/dadd/

Best regards,
Archaic

[The Good Michael]

Pirate Jack,

You are saying that schizophrenics are not dangerous on a routine basis, but episodically, it may be a different story. Meaning, episodes of bizarre murder or other crimes can occur, but for the most part, no one would ever suspect such a possibility. Is this what you are suggesting? If so, why would Anderson describe his suspect as a lunatic, if it wasn't detectable?

Cheers,

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

It all depends on what the voices in your head tell you to do.

[Natalie Severn]

Jeff,
Thankyou for your post which I found well thought through and made your train of thought clearer.

Archaic,
Thankyou for your post,most helpful and interesting, but first a big welcome back,
You look after yourself now!


OK,
Let me repeat a truly tragic example of what happened ,quite recently, when a male patient,at a large Northern psychiatric hospital where I had worked in the Art Therapy dept for a short period of time, was allowed home for the weekend .
This man was usually sedated with anti psychotic modern drugs,rendering him harmless.When he got home he failed to take his drugs and when the family woke up the following morning they discovered their mother and the man"s wife,had been "decapitated".
Now this man had been in and out of hospital for a number of years,and he had never been known to not take his drugs on weekend release previously.But this man was classified as being potentially dangerous nevertheless as indeed he proved himself to be.


To suggest that Aaron Kosminski, if indeed he did suffer from paranoid schizophrenia ,went for thirty years,in either Colney Hatch or Leavesdon, without a single psychotic episode worthy of note in his records in the days when drugs where not available to control that illness,is really living in cloud cuckoo land.
Jeff I take great issue with you over the age at which it is most common for a paranoid schizophrenic psychosis to occur: the age at which the first of several psychotic episodes occurs is "more likely" to be thirty not twenty three It is true that behaviour that is perceived as odd can be going on much earlier than that, but the kind of attack that causes dangerous and violent behaviour begins at about thirty and can,without the help of modern drugs that control the illness anyway,end in what you term "burn out"- from the age of forty -but I stress these are the most usual patterns,not the only patterns .

Moreover there are in actual fact several forms of schizophrenia and all except for the paranoid form of that illness are unlikely to cause violent behaviour.But if Aaron Kosminski did indeed suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, and not any of its milder forms ,then,like Dadd who Archaic cites above, he would have been classified,in 1891,as a danger to others which he most definitely was not classified as! and as a person with murderous and criminal potential and therefore, he would have been far more likely, as I have stated in previous posts, to have been placed in Broadmoor Hospital for the Criminally Insane ---just as Thomas Cutbush and several others we post about here, were known to have been , who were known to have drawn knives on people.

All the Best

Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

In his memoirs, retired City of London Police Inspector Robert Sagar reportedly said about the Jack the Ripper murders, “We had good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butcher’s Row, Aldgate. “We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities.” (Reynolds News, 15 September 1946.) Earlier remarks attributed to Inspector Sagar tell us that “…suspicion fell upon a man, who, without a doubt, was the murderer. Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was, however, placed in a lunatic asylum and the series of atrocities came to an end.”

COX: It is only upon certain conditions that I have agreed to deal with the great Whitechapel crimes of fifteen years ago. This would make his account 1891?

“We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes.” If he meant Kelly then it is at odds with his earlier statement.

Aaron Kosminski: On 12th July1890 he was admitted to the mile end workhouse on instruction of his brother wolf. His address at that time was given as 3 Sion Square. The order was signed by M Whitfeild and reason given fro admission was given as two years insane, in other words insane since 1888. We don’t know why he was admitted at this time, but it was not apparently serious as he was released three day after admission. On July 15th July 1890, into the care of his brother –in-law, Morris Lubnoski, and his wife Matilda.

Aaron’s age at 22 is fairly typical of the illness. It progresses in waves known as Psychotic episodes. Each attack lasting around 12-16 weeks. So it is quite possible Aaron went through a lasting period where he appeared to become very ill and then got better. This is fairly typical of the early stages of Schizophrenia, we would expect, if untreated, for each attack to get progressively worse. So while Aaron may have been perceived as a gibbering wreck eating from the gutter in 1891 he may have been far more coherent in 1888. Indeed the known incident with the dog appears to suggest that he was at least capable of appearing in court 1889 and had periods of being quite lucid.
On the afternoon of 4th February 1891 . Aaron is again taken by his brother and admitted by M Whitefeild. This time there would be No release.

Three days later, 7th February 1891, Aaron was discharged to the Middlesex County Lunatic Asylum Colney Hatch: Order: 11,190, Adm: 7th Feb 1891, Age:26, Civil State: Single, Occupation: Hairdresser, Religion: Hebrew, Education: R&W (probably reads and Writes), Time Insane, 6 years (which would make his first attack 1886?) Cause: self abuse (which fits with Anderson’s description but is obviously a laughable conclusion) Form of Disorder: Mania (most prob Schizophrenia) Symptoms of Disorder: Incoherence (which probably relates to the reason for his admission NEW ATTACK more Serious) Bodily State: Fair, Discharged: 19th April 1894 a day book from the day before it states:

“He declares that he is guided ad his movements altogether controlled by an instinct that informs his mind, he says that he knows the movements of all man kind, he refuses food from others because he is told to do so, he refuses food from others because he is told to do so, and he eats from the gutter for the same reason. Jacob Cohen, 51 Carter lane, St Paul’s EC1 says he goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread out of the gutter and eats them, he drinks water from a tap and he refuses food from the hands of others. He took a knife and threatened the life of his sister. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years. Signed HK Houchin”,

His condition was described as “MANIA” the equivalent of today’s Schizophrenia.

By the 6th February either Aaron was suffering a far more serious psychotic attacks or his family had serious reasons for wanting him admitted, possibly both.
“Observations: on admission patient is extremely deluded. As mentioned in certificate he believes that all his actions are dominated by an ‘Instinct’ this is probably aual hallucination. Answers questions fairly but is included to be reticent and morose. Health fair.”

In case notes there after are biannual and relate in main to his physical condition. (Which suggests little change) as they tell us nothing about his mental condition, the nature of his hallucinations, or what he said or did. 1891 Feb 10th: ‘Is rather difficult to deal with on account of the dominant Character of his delusions, Refused to be bathed the other day as his instinct forbade him’>1891 April 21, Incoherent, apathetic, in occupied, still the same ‘instinct’ objecting to weekly bath. Health fair. 1892 jan9 (following year) Incoherent. At times excited & VIOLENT-few days ago he took a chair and attempted to strike the charge attendant: apathetic as a rule, and refuses to occupy himself in any way-Habits cleanly-Health fair. 1892 Nov 17. Quiet and well behaved. Only speaks German. Does no work. 1893 Jan 18 (Two years after committal) Chronic Mania. Intelligence impaired: at times noisy, excited and incoherent: unoccupied-habits cleanly-health fair (this suggests at least another psychotic episode in his mental state which was apparently better before this?) 1893 April 8 incoherent. Quiet lately. Fair health. 1893 Sept 18 employed. Indolent, but quiet and clean in habits. Never employed. Answers questions concerning himself. 1894 April 13 Demented and incoherent, health fair 1894 April 19th Discharged. Relieved. Leavesden.

By this time Aaron appears to have reached a condition common among Schizophrenics called ‘Burn Out” this is normally reached mid thirties so at 22 developing the illness and 34 reaching ‘burnout’ Aaron shows all the classic signs of schizophrenic behavior pattern.

Aaron was committed to Leavesdon on 19th April 1894, nearest relative given as Mrs Kosminski possibly his mother Golda who by this time was also living in London. There are annual entries about his health but little change in his condition he dies 24 March 1919 age 59. He was given a traditional Jewish burial by his family.

Aaron was only 7 stone 8lbs 10oz when he died. But he had clearly wasted away and this tells us little about his appearance in 1888.

I believe I’ve made my position as clear as possible. Schizophrenics are NOT dangerous. If they become so, which is very rare (compared with other mental illnesses) then we would expect other external contributing factors. Childhood abuse, stress, chemicals, drugs (today puff or weed) most probably alcohol. Once removed from that environment the sufferer should be pretty harmless. Which of course Aaron was. However the possibility that he was capable of committing the JtR crimes in early on set of psychotic episodes remains. Without detailed assessment of the individual it is impossible to say for certain. It’s simply a possibility given what is known.

Pirate

Only the criminally insane are put in Broadmoor. As Aaron was never tried or convicted there is NO possibility he would have ended up there. Stop.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'd like to thank my Nephew for the following research:

Insanity is a legal term for a legally defined state of mind which will lead any criminal offence to a verdict of not guilty for a reason of insanity. The burden of proving insanity lies on whoever wishes such a finding to be made by the jury. In accordance with the provisions of S.2(1) of the trial of Lunatics Act 1883 it is only required to be proved that the accused ‘did the act or made the omission charged’.

The side bearing the burden of proof must prove (M’Naughten rules) there was a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the quality of the act he was doing.

Broadmoor prison history: Broadmoor was one of the first custom-built criminal lunatic asylums; it opened on 27 May 1863 to house 95 female patients.The male section opened the following year. The institution was "intended for the reception, safe custody and treatment of persons who had committed crimes while actually insane or who became insane whilst undergoing sentence of punishment" . In 1864 the possible causes of insanity were listed as: anxiety, epilepsy, intemperance, vice, poverty, religious excitement, fright, and exposure to hot climates.

Before 1800 there was no special sentencing of criminals who were mentally ill. This changed when a man named James Hadfield attempted to murder King George III at the Theatre Royal in London. Hadfield claimed that he had been acting on the orders of God. The jury acquitted him on the grounds of insanity, which caused public outcry. Nobody knew what to do with Hadfield, so parliament quickly passed a new law, the Criminal Lunatics Act, 1800.

This Act allowed judges to give a custodial sentence to mentally ill criminals. They could be detained ‘until His Majesty’s pleasure be known’ – in other words indefinitely. Hadfield was detained in Bethlem Royal Hospital, an asylum in London, for the rest of his life.

The government felt that neither ordinary asylums nor prisons were suitable places to keep the criminal lunatics. They built separate wards at Bethlem and Fisherton House Asylum near Salisbury, but these were soon full. In 1860 the government finally took action and passed the Criminal Lunatic Asylum Act. This Act allowed the government to create England’s first purpose-built criminal lunatic asylum - Broadmoor.

The asylum was "intended for the reception, safe custody and treatment of persons who had committed crimes while actually insane or who became insane whilst undergoing sentence of punishment".

In 1880 seriously dangerous people who were found criminally insane were sent to bethlam (bedlam) institute for the insane then transferred into broad moor at a later stage. I am confident that if Aaron Kosminski had faced trial over ripper murders he probably would have been found criminally insane and sent to one of these two institutes (which one depends on the type of treatment he would of needed). Kosminski was committed by his family and was not facing punishment for criminal offences. This is why he was not sent to the criminal institution of broad moor, the fact that he could not be the ripper as the ripper would of been sent to broad moor is narrow minded in my opinion.

[Natalie Severn]

But Jeff,we are not talking about the generic term of schizophrenia!

For crying out loud Jeff, the term Schizophrenia is a generic one and covers several entirely harmless forms of that illness .

It is paranoid schizophrenia---the dangerous form ---that you should be referring to,that is if you are claiming that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper!And please get your facts right about the most likely age of onset!
Lets be specific here shall we.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Point

No, I’m putting that statement in context. Begg has never said anything other than Anderson is a complex character to consider. And has always presented balanced opinion about him. So if there are, pro and anti camps, which Begg has always denied and I feel rather simplistic given the broad range of opinion about the Ripper, then we are arguing about the details rather than general or over all assessment of his character..
...
Yours Jeff

No pun intended, I beg to differ.

The point is that early key works by Paul Begg, his Uncensored Facts (1988-1990) and the A-Z (1991-1996) are regarded as reference works and used by many people researching the case. In these books he leans very strongly in favour of Anderson and the Polish Jew theory. We have remarks such as "If his [Anderson's] statement ['definitely ascertained fact'] is true, and I know of no evidence to the contrary, the first and most obvious question is when was this fact 'definitely ascertained'?" This is written as a statement of fact and has been widely accepted as such since 1988. The said books are notable for not reproducing texts, such as the 1889 Anderson interview, that may militate against Anderson's knowledge.

It is also stated, "Secondly, if, as seems probable, Sir Robert Anderson's unnamed Polish Jew was Kosminski [I would agree with that] and that - at least as far as Anderson was concerned - Kosminski's guilt was a 'definitely ascertained fact', it is clear that Kosminski was also a primary candidate." This statement is tempered by Macnaghten's caveat that 'no shadow of proof' could be thrown on Kosminski and the others. However, earlier on the same page we have been told that "Macnaghten cannot be regarded as a reliable source."

We are told, "Until evidence can be shown to the contrary, the balance of probability is that if the police ever did know the identity of Jack the Ripper, he was one of these three men." Having disposed of Druitt and Ostrog this means that, given the caveats, Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. Pretty strong stuff in a reference work and we are given no reason to doubt what Anderson stated. The A-Z followed similar lines. The end result is a core of Ripper students, readers of this material (and you may see some of them posting on the boards), who can see no other solution to the case than that offered by Anderson, or reasoning based upon what he said.

Recognising that they were basing their opinions and conclusions, as far as they went, mainly upon the writings of Anderson Messrs. Fido and Begg set out to build up a picture of unimpeachable honesty as regards Anderson. We are told that he would never lie to us in his published secular writings and that he would not boast. I have always thought this to be a one-sided view of Anderson and, believe me, many leading authorities agree with me. If you do not think that these works have a heavy bias in favour of Anderson I suggest that you re-read them. I have always sought to redress this imbalance and to publish everything - good or bad - with regard to Anderson, in order for others to draw their conclusion from a fuller picture.

We all have our own bias or preferred scenarios to a degree which is why to write objectively on this case is so very difficult. And I am not dismissing the very good works by these authors out of hand. The A-Z is a very good touchstone book and my working copy is dog-eared. For its time Paul Begg's Uncensored Facts was one of the best around. But they were very influential and deeply swayed many students of the case who have since never strayed from the Anderson course and mindset.

[Stewart P Evans]

Totally Wrong

Hello Stewart,
When I say an ad hominem argument, I am simply referring to the attempt to debunk the whole Kozminski as a suspect theory via attacking Anderson's character, integrity etc. I do not personally see much point in claiming that a person is either of a saintlike character, and incapable of lying, nor a despicable rogue who is incapable of telling the truth. Whether or not a person may have lied, had lapses of memory I do not think can prove anything about whether the specific statement in question is true or not. Quoting from wikipedia for example:
"Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)"
As I think you might agree, there is a tendency here for certain people to get somewhat hysterical over these issues, and to decide to throw out absolutely everything Anderson ever said as being untruthful. I think someone earlier today said something about not trusting anything any of the senior police officers ever said.
...
Rob H

This is where you are so totally wrong and I do not believe that you are internalising all that has gone before. I know that you almost cringe at any adverse writing about Anderson and, I guess, readers are aware that you are an avid follower of the Kosminski line of reasoning.

You know that I have never done anything but encourage you to research and write upon Kosminski and the Polish Jew theory and that I have helped you wherever I can. You also know that I rate the Polish Jew/Kosminski theory as one worth pursuing and have told you that a good, objective, book examining this whole aspect is sorely missing and would be a much needed addition to the Ripper bookshelf. So how on earth can you personify my input here as 'the attempt to debunk the whole Kozminski as a suspect theory via attacking Anderson's character, integrity etc.'? I'm afraid that you need to re-assess your ideas on what I say.

Where have I stated that he was 'a despicable rogue who is incapable of telling the truth'? This is where your error lies. For far from attacking the theory, I am actually attacking the one-sided view of Anderson presented in the past where he is depicted as someone who would never lie or boast. This image of Anderson has been built to imbue his words with more force and relevance that they actually should have, given the fuller picture of him that research reveals. Those who espouse the Anderson theory have drawn a much stronger argument for its veracity than is warranted by the facts.

Ad hominem is Latin and means 'against the man'. In the sense of an argument it is used in the context that if you can't disprove an argument (theory in this case) then attack the man to reduce the value of what he says. But it is the sources that espouse Anderson's writings that have done the very opposite by trying to show that you cannot doubt what Anderson says, therefore his theory is bordering upon the solution of the case. This is, quite simply, over-stating the argument and giving a false image to Anderson.

So whilst I would never advocate dismissing everything Anderson said, far from it, I would not recommend swallowing his writings on the Home Rule movement or Jack the Ripper without certain caveats. Indeed, you may have seen me argue on another thread for the correctness of Anderson's report to the Chief Commissioner on the comings and goings of the doctors in the Mylett case. Things like this are never simple and require careful thought and consideration. If you re-read all I have written on this you will see that I have provided much contemporary source material on Anderson that has never been provided for the general reader here before. This valid and contemporary material requires consideration and assessment before reaching a conclusion on just how much veracity to attach to what Anderson wrote on these things. Because, in reality, the Polish Jew was just another suspect preferred by a senior police officer.

[Stewart P Evans]

Macnaghten

Hello Stewart,
...
As for the "head officers at CID"... I do not know who this might be. Nor am I really disagreeing with your opinion that the margin note refers to the Ripper letter. I am just stating my opinion that it might not. It might refer to the previous part (part of the same paragraph) which Swanson underlined and highlighted. I am saying it is debatable. I do not think anyone can state as a fact that it refers to the Ripper letter.
Re Macnaghten and Cox... as Chris wrote earlier: "Macnaghten's statement that he was committed to an asylum about March 1889. That does seem to be an error, but at least it shows that Macnaghten believed that Kozminski's incarceration (and, presumably, investigation) pre-dated his own appointment in June 1889. " This is a valid point I think to be considered.
And re: Cox. As I have written before, I think that Cox may very well have been conducting surveillance on Kozminski. Surely, if we believe Swanson, then someone at City CID was. And according to Cox's account, it seems that this surveillance was sometime around Nov 1888 - Feb 1889.
Rob H

By the 'head officers of CID' I should think that Swanson would mean, in descending order of rank, Anderson, Williamson, Macnaghten (later), Shore and himself. I still think that looked at, as written, it logically refers only to the 'enterprising London journalist.'

Apropos of Macnaghten, and given the discrepancies in what he wrote, I do not think that it is safe to cite what he said about incarceration as a guide to when Kosminski was investigated. Here the extant reports would seem to indicate that such was not the case. Such an investigation should have warranted official mention, and I don't subscribe to any 'secrecy' theory.

Cox's account (discovered by Nick Connell when researching our book in the late 1990s) is interesting but here we have only a newspaper story, written many years after the event, which in no way proves that the suspect watched was Aaron Kosminski.

Another problem is the confusion caused by the actual Ripper murders being generally perceived to end with the murder of Kelly but the Whitechapel murders being generally accepted to have ended with the murder of Coles. In later years the confusion is apparent and we have statements, such as Anderson's, that the career of the Ripper was, "cut short by committal to an asylum."

[Stewart P Evans]

Please See

Quite so, Rob
It's the old lawyer's standby trick
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury....
If this person lied once ever they are therefore lying now

Please see my preceding posts.

[Stewart P Evans]

Please See

You draw a picture which distinctly leans towards the anti-Anderson camp.
Im sure you will say your not in any camp, but you certainly bat for one side more than the other.

Please see my preceding posts.