Did Anderson Know

[Chris]

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.

I'm afraid I still don't understand this argument, because obviously the surviving official records don't mention all those who were under surveillance at the time. For example, they don't mention the suspect or suspects described by Sagar and Cox - though Sagar is later claimed to have expressed himself pretty well as strongly about his suspect as Anderson did about [Kozminski].

[Natalie Severn]

re only Head officers of CID

Stewart,
Surely Littlechild a CID officer himself , must have had some inkling of all this ,since he wrote in 1912 ,as you well know, Anderson only "thought" he knew -as though he, Littlechild had some "inside information" on Anderson"s definitely ascertainable fact?

[Stewart P Evans]

Sagar

I'm afraid I still don't understand this argument, because obviously the surviving official records don't mention all those who were under surveillance at the time. For example, they don't mention the suspect or suspects described by Sagar and Cox - though Sagar is later claimed to have expressed himself pretty well as strongly about his suspect as Anderson did about [Kozminski].

The Whitechapel murders files are fairly extensive as regards the ongoing investigation until the Pinchin Street crime. I wouldn't expect them to specify a suspect that the City Police had under observation unless that suspect was tied to a Metropolitan Police investigation. The City records are lost. Sagar's 'Butcher's Row' suspect was mentioned in Reynolds News of 15 September 1946 in an article by Justin Atholl. He stated he was quoting from Sagar's 'memoirs' - which have never been found.

As you know, Sagar was, however, previously mentioned in The City Press of 7 January 1905, when he retired. It was here stated that the killer was a madman who was, without doubt, the murderer. Identification was not possible but 'he was placed in a lunatic asylum, and the series of atrocities came to an end.' This raises a few questions and, as far as it goes, is in line with Anderson's claims of 1895 and 1901, and Griffiths' text of 1898, with which Sagar, or the reporter (as it is not at all clear that Sagar is being quoted), may have been agreeing. It is interesting to note here that the series of murders was noted as ending with his incarceration. It does not specify which murder was the last of the series.

[Stewart P Evans]

I Agree

Stewart,
Surely Littlechild a CID officer himself , must have had some inkling of all this ,since he wrote in 1912 ,as you well know, Anderson only "thought" he knew -as though he, Littlechild had some "inside information" on Anderson"s definitely ascertainable fact?

Yes, I agree, and I was going to mention Littlechild as one of the heads but stuck with line, down to Swanson, who were committed to general CID work.

[Stephen Thomas]

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."

And this is the crux of the whole thing, Stewart

Somebody, and not Kosminski, was banged up before the McKenzie murder.

[Jeff Leahy]

No pun intended, I beg to differ.

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.

.

Perhaps we simply have a different interpretation of what Begg/Fido are saying because I cant find where either state that Anderson would never lie of boast.

Martin Fido has stated that Anderson would not lie for personal kudos and that statement was based on his expert knowledge and his study of Andersons writing. It does not strike me that there is anything wrong or incorrect in that statement.

Indeed I’m aware that Martin admitted that Anderson could and did lie if he thought it achieved a greater good, such as putting a terrorist or murderer behind bars, but that he would not lie about the Ripper being caught when he wasn’t just so he and Scotland Yard could look good.

And as has been addressed here, it wouldn’t make sense for him to have done so anyway. Anderson could have been wildly wrong, but honestly believed what he wrote, which is far more likely than him having knowingly claimed a crime was solved when he knew everyone knew it wasn’t.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

The City Press

I'm afraid I still don't understand this argument, because obviously the surviving official records don't mention all those who were under surveillance at the time. For example, they don't mention the suspect or suspects described by Sagar and Cox - though Sagar is later claimed to have expressed himself pretty well as strongly about his suspect as Anderson did about [Kozminski].

Just to add a bit more on this post. You here state that "Sagar is later claimed to have expressed himself pretty well as strongly about his suspect as Anderson did about [Kozminski]." This is not, however, at all certain.

Here you are citing The City Press article of January 7, 1905, published on Sagar's retirement. It is titled 'A Famous City Detective Some of HIs Experiences Retold.' The lengthy article runs over some of the incidents in Sagar's career and ends up with the inevitable piece on 'Jack the Ripper', Sagar obviously having told the reporter of his liaison with the Metropolitan Police over the murders.

But the final account starting "Much has been said and written...", see attached, reads as a press add-on about the murders in journalistic style. Its content, as I said, ties in with the then published writings of Anderson and Griffiths and does not appear to be an account of Sagar's.

[Stewart P Evans]

See...

Perhaps we simply have a different interpretation of what Begg/Fido are saying because I cant find where either state that Anderson would never lie of boast.
Martin Fido has stated that Anderson would not lie for personal kudos and that statement was based on his expert knowledge and his study of Andersons writing. It does not strike me that there is anything wrong or incorrect in that statement.
Indeed I’m aware that Martin admitted that Anderson could and did lie if he thought it achieved a greater good, such as putting a terrorist or murderer behind bars, but that he would not lie about the Ripper being caught when he wasn’t just so he and Scotland Yard could look good.
...
Pirate

See below (from page 356 of The Facts) and note "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". Also note, "...it is quite incompatible with publishing lies in books for a wide audience."

[Jeff Leahy]

“There is no cohesive and persuasive argument against the truth of Anderson’s Story, just a jumble of doubts and objections.”

This statement would appear completely correct. Is that not the precise situation?

No one, as far as I can see has proved Anderson lied. There are a number of people who have suggested possibilities to the contrary. But nothing of any substance.

Then we have Fido saying: “Not that he was as priggishly truthful as Washington”

I think it would be fair to say that balance has been observed. Whether or not that balance is different from your own judgment of balance, well that’s possibly fair.

But I think the argument is in the detail. Begg is after all a famous ‘Fence sitter’

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Needless To Say

“There is no cohesive and persuasive argument against the truth of Anderson’s Story, just a jumble of doubts and objections.”
This statement would appear completely correct. Is that not the precise situation?
No one, as far as I can see has proved Anderson lied. There are a number of people who have suggested possibilities to the contrary. But nothing of any substance.
Then we have Fido saying: “Not that he was as priggishly truthful as Washington”
I think it would be fair to say that balance has been observed. Whether or not that balance is different from your own judgment of balance, well that’s possibly fair.
But I think the argument is in the detail. Begg is after all a famous ‘Fence sitter’
Pirate

Needless to say I do not agree. And the initial quote could as easily be turned around to, "There is no cohesive and persuasive argument for the truth of Anderson's story, just a jumble of maybes and ifs."

So, no, it is not the precise situation, there has been enough now published to prove that Anderson is not reliable enough to accept at his word. It's silly to say that no one has proved that Anderson has lied for, likewise no one has proved he has told the truth.

And it's not my 'own judgement of balance', it is the judgement of balance of many, many others too. Authorities who are at a much higher level than you are.

Fence sitters are renowned for getting a sore arse.

[Jeff Leahy]

And it's not my 'own judgement of balance', it is the judgement of balance of many, many others too. Authorities who are at a much higher level than you are.

True Stewart but then I’ve never claimed to be an authority on Anderson. I can only report expert opinion.

Martin Fido has stated that Anderson would not lie for personal kudos and that statement was based on reasoning, perhaps you could help us lesser informed ripperologists by stating where that reasoning is incorrect?

Pirate

[Trevor Marriott]

True Stewart but then I’ve never claimed to be an authority on Anderson. I can only report expert opinion.

Martin Fido has stated that Anderson would not lie for personal kudos and that statement was based on reasoning, perhaps you could help us lesser informed ripperologists by stating where that reasoning is incorrect?

Pirate

Expert opinions and reasoning is there to be closely scrutinised and questioned where applicable.

How can Fido be an expert into Anderson he never even met the man all he has done is go through all the papers etc the same as everyone else on here.

Anderson has been proved to be unreliable in many different ways so why do some still want to beleive him without question.

[Stewart P Evans]

Expert

True Stewart but then I’ve never claimed to be an authority on Anderson. I can only report expert opinion.
Martin Fido has stated that Anderson would not lie for personal kudos and that statement was based on reasoning, perhaps you could help us lesser informed ripperologists by stating where that reasoning is incorrect?
Pirate

Experts, really, who are the experts? I am not an expert that is for sure but I am sure that you will tell me that Martin is.

I am not going to trail out all that has been written in the past because you are too lazy to look for it. But I will give one example, that I have given before. On page 137 of The Lighter Side of My Official Life Anderson writes, "And the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the 'Jack the Ripper' scare no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide." The Poplar case was not 'a death from natural causes', it was a murder case, the inquest verdict was murder and the case remained on file at Scotland Yard as an unsolved murder.

Anderson did not like the fact that it was another unsolved murder committed under his regime and resulting in press criticism and even the silly suggestion that it may be another Ripper crime. Anderson's above statement is presented as fact and any reader seeing that alone would not even know that it was recorded as an unsolved murder.

[Steven Russell]

Anderson seems to have been a very honourable man. If he was less than convinced about a "definitely ascertained fact", would he not have been more likely to have said something along the lines of, "very strong suspicions"?

Of course, this does not rule out the possibility that he was wrong. But an out and out liar?

Regards,

Steve.

[Stewart P Evans]

Unfortunately

...
Martin Fido has stated that Anderson would not lie for personal kudos and that statement was based on reasoning, perhaps you could help us lesser informed ripperologists by stating where that reasoning is incorrect?
...
Pirate

Unfortunately for Martin he sometimes gets things dismally wrong - just like us lesser, unscholarly, mortals.