Did Anderson Know

[jason_c]

S-U-B-P-O-E-N-A


Colin [ATTACH]2129[/ATTACH]

And force witness to say what?

[Septic Blue]

But a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was caged and identified (assuming JtR was Kosminski).

"... a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was ... identified"

The notion that a witness having potentially damning evidence in a case such as this, would be allowed to refrain from giving testimony as a matter of personal preference, is anything but plausible. In fact, it is absurd !!!


Colin

"... a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was ... identified"

The notion that a witness having potentially damning evidence in a case such as this, would be allowed to refrain from giving testimony as a matter of personal preference, is anything but plausible. In fact, it is absurd !!!


Colin

Are you suggesting no witness has ever refused to testify in the entire history of legal proceedings? What alternative did the police have, particularly now that the suspect was locked away?

The scenario that the police could force someone to testify is as implausible as anything else I have heard today.

What alternative did the police have, ...?

The scenario that the police could force someone to testify is as implausible as anything else I have heard today.

S-U-B-P-O-E-N-A


Colin

S-U-B-P-O-E-N-A


Colin

And force witness to say what?

Hypothetical statement of fairytale witness, drawn from hypothetical subpoena of said witness, following fairytale refusal to give testimony regarding fairytale suspect, during fairytale 'identification':

"That’s him !!!”


Colin


PS: I shall henceforth initial all of my posts to this forum, so as to take precaution for the possibility that I might at some point, forget which posts are actually mine.

This should prove particularly useful in those instances, in which I confuse workhouse nomenclature, cite deaths which have yet to occur, and inexplicably refer to key suspects by surname only, when coincidentally no previous references to full name have been recorded.

CCR

[Stewart P Evans]

Valid

Thanks for explaining. I think these discussions have been useful - perhaps more so than the acrimonious tone of some of the responses would suggest. Certainly some possibilities have occurred to me that hadn't struck me before.
My feeling is still that most of the anomalies and difficulties in the marginalia are probably due to confusion on Swanson's part - and that Anderson's claims may also be confused to some extent (though I can believe wishful thinking and perhaps even duplicity play a part too).
The trouble is that if Swanson were confused, he might easily be confused about the intervals of time between the events he refers to, or even the order of events. So I think it's difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the timings. Equally, the "Seaside Home" - whatever that meant - might have been confused by Anderson with an asylum. I think all we can really do is keep looking for information that could shed light on these questions. It's perhaps unlikely that any more information will surface, but on the other hand it's obviously far from impossible.

Chris, thank you for these valid and insightful remarks. You are right that new information may surface, especially with many records becoming available by word search as they are digitalized. Also we have researchers such as yourself, Chris, Rob and Scott on the job (as it were) so we know that the possibility is there.

[robhouse]

I was wondering if anyone has ever tried to trace Anderson's descendants? I know Stephen Ryder tracked down his correspondence... I wonder if these were in the possession of one of his descendants?

I tried looking online and all I could find was the first generation, ie. his children

Robert Anderson m 1873 Lady Agnes Alexandrina Moore
Arthur Ponsonby Moore Anderson b. 7 july 1874
Alan Seymour Moore Anderson, b 11 july 1876
Walter Graham Moore Anderson, b 12 Sept 1877
Matthew Edmund Moore Anderson, b 26 July 1880
Alice Mary Agneta Moore Anderson, b. 21 June 1885

[celee]

It would appear that you have not read all the source material on this as you are asking about the City suspect being followed and that story has been published in full in more than one book and is available, also, on the Casebook. It simply is not good enough to choose to 'believe' anyone's story unless you have read, assessed and internalised all the available material.

Hi,

I have read some material about the the City Police Suspect. I doubt that I have read all the source material on the subject. I am of the opinion that Anderson's suspect and the City suspect are one and the same. I realize that there are differences.I feel that Anderson and Swanson had more faith in the witness, that made the identification, then did others.

Your friend, Brad

[perrymason]

In this instance, I think questionable imperical statements attributed to Anderson in other areas concerning these cases has made this impossible to sort out what is "known"...and what was "believed".

"He only thought he knew"....from a member of the investigative team that was in London for the entire series and was hands on throughout, should carry some weight in this matter too.

Best regards all.

[John Malcolm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that J.G. Littlechild, who was quoted above, had anything whatsoever to do with the investigations of the Whitechapel murders. But then again, I'm one of those wackos who actually believes that Anderson, et al, knew quite a bit more than we will ever know about the identity of "Jack the Ripper".

[perrymason]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that J.G. Littlechild, who was quoted above, had anything whatsoever to do with the investigations of the Whitechapel murders. But then again, I'm one of those wackos who actually believes that Anderson, et al, knew quite a bit more than we will ever know about the identity of "Jack the Ripper".

You may have caught me in a gaff John, if you refer to my quote, as I believed it was from Fred Abberline when I wrote it. Before checking the memory, which in my advancing age I should do often.

Cheers.

[fido]

Anderson's probity and the Swanson marginalia

The suggestion is, Jason, that Paul Begg and I are refusing to acknowledge historical evidence that challenges our earlier carefully evaluated conclusions, and that we claim Anderson as an unimpeachable witness. It is quite untrue. From the time I first pointed out the importance of Anderson I stressed that he was always bigoted and might have been wrong - a position from which I have never deviated. Let me add that I am quite sure he would cling to a wrong idea long after other people had shown it to be wrong. (A late Victorian police habit, demonstrated lamentably in the Harriet Buswell case, where they continued to believe in the guilt of a German ship's chaplain after a hotel-full of witnesses had proved that he was in bed with flu at the time she was murdered, and the Foreign Office had apologized to the Kaiser for the harrassment of one of his subjects). People who purport to correct Paul and me with new material almost invariably turn out to have studied nothing about Anderson's life as an active (and eccentric) practising Christian and amateur theologian. His work is still studied and respected by some Protestant scholars (though I might add that I do not respect it!). I think I am the only person working on the Ripper to have spoken with Anderson's granddaughter about him. And as far as I know I have made a more detailed study of his involvement in anti-Fenian activities than anyone else. Has anybody else looked at the papers dealing with his intelligence on the Fenian plot to invade Canada? Or the Home Office files grumbling about his publishing officially gained information before his retirement? And from all this detailed study, I reiterate positively that although all men are liars, Anderson was unquestionably saying something he believed to be true when he said that Jack the Ripper had been identified. The observation in the A to Z which Stewart quotes disparagingly is a necessary corrective to the appallingly misleading suggestion that Anderson might have been making up his claim or inventing his witness. His claim may have been wrong and his witness unreliable, but this was not a fantasist's boast or a geriatric's misrecollection. Anderson just wasn't that sort of man.
As for the PMG interview, look carefully at the wording: "our failure to find". I don't deny that it could mean Anderson still had no positive conclusion in November 1889, and instantly concede that this would rule out David Cohen (who, I believe, is far more likely than Kosminski to have been Anderson's supect - and again, I note that my conclusions are being challenged by people who have not undertaken the necessary scholarly re-checking of my original work in tracing all Jewish patients in London asylums between 1888 and 1890 and all deaths of Kosminskis, Kosminskys and Kaminskys registered between 1888 and 1960 before I reached the conclusion that Cohen is the only patient who fits Anderson's account. To dismiss my arguments opponents depend instead on logic-chopping.) The PMG article would not, however, rule out Kosminski if he were indentified in the asylum after November 1891 (which I deem possible, but extremely unlikely). But the words "failure to find" uttered in an interview might only mean 'failure to arrest and bring to trial'. I am not suggesting that this was necessarily the case: I am happy to agree that the wording in the letter like the very important suggestion that Mr Lawende was used again in the Grainger case - (I am writing hastily from memory, and beg your forgiveness if I've got the name wrong in the later case in which the witness who has supposedly seen the Ripper was pulled out again) - casts reasonable doubt on Anderson's conclusion, though Anderson would certainly have known if this was the case, and it clearly had not altered his conclusion by 1901 or 1910. But I have myself suffered from incautioiusly worded responses to inteviewers which have resulted in my being quoted (accurately) as saying something definitely untrue when the words are taken precisely and literally, without regard to hyperbole or casual approximation to the real meaning. Let me point out, loudly and clearly, that despite the necessary vaunting in my first book on the Ripper - (publishers expect you to declare that you've found him, and as a matter of fact, I was then quite sure I had) - I would go no further now than to say decisively that David Cohen is the most plausible suspect ever named (a conclusion endorsed by Dr John Douglas, former head of the FBI offender profiling unit, and the late Dr William Eckert, founder of the Milton Helpern Institute for Forensic Science.)
As for the suggestion that the Swanson marginalia might have been forged or doctored, it is unbelievable poppycock. There are, of course, huge questions about them - notably, why do they get such a blatant fact as the death of Kosminsky wrong? But they are indubitably genuine and indubitably in Swanson's hand, whether or not he wrote the on-page marginalia and the endpaper notes at the same time or with the same pencil. To suggest tampering by anyone in whose hands they had been is as ridiculous as to suggest that the Tumblety letter is a forgery perpetrated by someone who didn't know how to find a buyer for Sims' correspondence until he had the brilliant idea of adding a spurious Ripper-related letter, so that they ultimately wound up in Stewart's possession. Nobody with any scholarly training could doubt for a moment that the Swanson marginalia are genuine, especially if they had met and talked with Jim Swanson and looked at other Swanson documents in his possession (and the interesting notes identifying Macnaghtenas the officer who vexed Anderson to the point that he threw a threatenng letter on the fire). I am astounded that this nonsense is still current, and fear that "new readers" are being confronted with a 'controversy' as hopelessly unreal as the suggestion that species did not evolve or Bacon wrote Shakespeare.
Martin Fido

[Stewart P Evans]

Unscholarly

As an unscholarly plebian I must never challenge the 'carefully evaluated conclusions' of Martin Fido and Paul Begg.

I must, at some time, put some study into the subject of Robert Anderson and his life, and I must not raise any doubts as to his honesty and belief in the truth of what he said. Perhaps then, like others who 'have made a more detailed study', I shall know what sort of man he was.

I must not make the wrong interpretation of words uttered by Anderson in interviews given (notably omitted from certain books). Perhaps, given proper scholarly study, I may begin to understand what he meant.

I am obviously missing something somewhere in not realising that a total non-suspect is the best bet to have been the real 'Jack the Ripper.' Give me time, I'll get back to the 1987 books and study them.

I must never cast any doubt on the 'Swanson marginalia' and if I note (as others apparently failed to do in 1987/88) discrepancies in such unimpeachable sources then I must totally ignore such discrepancies in case noting them may cast some sort of doubt on them. Mum's the word!

It's that damned lack of scholarly training again, I do feel such an idiot, in fact I must remember not to write on this subject again or I shall further expose my lack of such training and failure to carry out proper research.

Anyway teacher, it's back to the drawing board for me, and you new folk just set to reading the carefully evaluated works of Messrs. Fido and Begg and don't get suckered in by unread and careless commentators like me.

[DVV]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that J.G. Littlechild, who was quoted above, had anything whatsoever to do with the investigations of the Whitechapel murders. But then again, I'm one of those wackos who actually believes that Anderson, et al, knew quite a bit more than we will ever know about the identity of "Jack the Ripper".

If Anerson knew, we would have all been convinced, and casebook forum would have never existed.
If he knew, some other police officials would have knew, too.
As you very well know, Abberline did not believe Anderson, Macnaghten's favourite wasn't Kosminski, Littlechild suggested Tumblety, Smith made the ripper a "gentile", and Swanson never dared to support his "friend" publicly (asinus asinum fricat...secretly), etc, etc.
And Anderson was abroad in September...

So why should we believe him because of his position?

Amitiés,
David

[Cap'n Jack]

'Excuse me, sir,' announces the young constable at the desk of Exec. Super, Cutbush, helmet in hand and truncheon in sheath which they stopped carrying in 1886, although the colander above Exec. Super's head says it is 1888 and the veg is still not boiled.
'What is it, my man?!' demands Exec. Super. Cutbush as he furiously polishes his service pistol.
'There is a colander above your head, sir' explains the young constable.
'You damn fool!' screams the Exec. Super. 'I know that. Now what brings you here at this late hour?
'It's Anderson, sir, he's been at it with the chalk again, sir,' explains the pc.
'What is it this time?' asks Cutbush with a sigh. 'The Jews again, I suppose, or by hell, he hasn't exposed himself on a train again has he, for lord's sake?'
'The Jews, sir,' confirms the pc. 'He's written a massage on a Whitechapel wall saying that the Jews are the men wot did it, sir.'
'A massage, by god, I haven't had one of them since Swanson did his minstrel sketch with those Fijian ladyboys and we took a box at the Adelphi afterwards... but I digest, to the matter at hand. No matter I'll send Warren down with some chalk and get him to change the massage. Have you your notebook to hand?'
'Yes, sir.'
'Good, make sure Warren writes down on the wall 'The jaws did it not, it wos the Candles'. Got that?'
'Candles, sir?'
'Yes, yes, the Candles use Catholics to burn down little tubes of wax with tapers through them, and then they throw them into the water reservoirs around London. One can't be too careful, you know, that's why I keep the colander on the wall. The Candles can't reach that high as they are only a house brick high.'
'Very good sir!'
'You know what to do, then, young constable?' enquires Exec. Super. Cutbush.
'Yes sir!' answers the young pc. 'Go to the nearest pub, get absolutely ****-faced, and then throw myself into the Thames.'
'Good fellow,' sighs Exec. Super. Cutbush as he slides the barrel of his service pistol into his mouth.

Strange how so many want Jack the Ripper to be Johnny Foreigner.

[Bailey]

If I might interject a possibly somewhat obvious question into this thread, was there ever any response to Anderson stating in interviews that the murder had been apprehended and caged in an asylum? Surely if such a comment were published, we would expect there to be people demanding more information from him?

After all, with such widespread public interest in the case at the time, if a senior officer casually declares in a press interview, "Oh yes, we knew who he was, we have him locked up," wouldn't people pursue him on this point? I would expect the interviewer to leap on it first of all, and if that was not the case then surely an editor, a letter writer to the paper, someone somewhere must have thought this was worth pursuing. Has anyone ever checked subsequent issues of the appropriate papers for any such follow up or inquiry?

Cheers,
Bailey

(Not falling down on either side of this particular argument, but quite intrigued by the possibility of watching a continuing discussion between Messrs Fido and Evans - carry on, Sirs!)

[DVV]

Bailey,
that's exactly what other officials did...
They pooh-poohed Anderson, without uttering his name.
The good question you have to ask yourself, on the contrary, is: why has Anderson not been publicly supported?

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

AP,
thanks for the fun. That sublimates merkana and tchebsi after strong awoday khat!