Did Anderson Know

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

I doubt if Anderson decided to 'sex-up' his book version of TLSOMOL with a Polish Jew in order to please his publisher and boost sales. It was hardly a revelation in late 1910, for it had already appeared earlier the same year in Blackwood's magazine.

Moving on—

Apart from Mentor's original objections to Anderson pointing a finger at the Jews, there appears to have been little or no press and public interest in his solution to the 22-year-old mystery of Jack the Ripper.

However, we cannot escape the fact that in 1910 it was a publicly broadcast and "definitely ascertained fact" that the Whitechapel murderer was a Polish Jew.

So if Anderson, the police officer in charge of the 1888 Ripper investigation, was telling the truth, why was he not believed? Why did his 1910 revelation fail to stop the mystery in its tracks?

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Yet curiously despite all this Andrson felt confident enough to publish what he did.

Despite the fact that Simon Wood would be waiting for him one hundred years later

Pirate

PS that’s not an official position

[Natalie Severn]

How very selective you are,Jeff, about the senior policemen you choose to believe!
Some factual observations:

Macnaghten was "unreliable"!!!!!

Anderson was "unreliable"!!!!!

I dont know about Abberline.He certainly never thought Schwartz had seen the ripper let alone thought it a "definitely ascertainable fact".In fact he apparently thought what Winston Churchill thought, that what Anderson did best was to make up Fairy Tales!




The Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police, Sir Henry Smith,may have been "unreliable' but he was certainly no more unreliable than Sir Melville Macnaghten or Sir Robert Anderson........and thankfully never went in for creating dubious "identification scenarios" with vulnerable patients in mental institutions! The man Anderson chose to target and put in his book, THe Lighter Years of My Official Life",was apparently Kosminski .If it was Aaron Kosminski , a man who at 25 was diagnosed by his doctors as "harmless " both initially and throughout his 30 year hospital stay for mental health care,then this Kosminski never once had a single conviction for violent behaviour in his life.
Sadly he would have been in no position to answer back over such an accusation by Anderson ,who decided to dub him "Jack the Ripper"--- the World"s most famous serial killer.

But then what does that matter when you need to persuade everyone who reads your autobiography that you were the policeman who knew who the ripper was and had even id"ed him?

[Stewart P Evans]

The Walsall Bomb Plot

The Walsall bomb plot of 1891 was an extremely dubious affair from the police point of view and was undoubtedly an example of police use of agents provocateurs.

To use Anderson's words "I would say emphatically that in recent years the Police have succeeded only by straining the law, or, in plain English, by doing unlawful things, at intervals, to check the conspiracy." [Anderson memo dated 13 December 1898 ref - HO45/10254/X36450]

As you have no doubt seen in Anderson's book he stated that most 'kudos attached to the detection rather than the prevention of crimes.' Here, I'm afraid he's getting things the wrong way round. Police priority is prevention - then detection.

Sure you may use the excuse that here the aim was to lock up the bombers - but by setting up the plot first? I think that Anderson clearly had double standards and did not allow his official work to be influenced by his religious beliefs.

[Stewart P Evans]

Update

Just to clarify my understanding of the A to Z position:
It does not claim Anderson as ‘a paragon of virtue’ or ‘propose him almost as a saint’. The crucial part of Martin’s argument, and oft quoted by Begg is as follows:
“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.
You might ague that that assessment is incorrect but don’t think it fair to say that Anderson has been portrayed here as Whiter than white. On the contrary my understanding of their position has been to stress the complicated nature of his character and the importance of understanding the historical context in which he worked, and wrote, what he did.
And that is largely what I have been attempting to do, seek a balanced argument in regard to what made Anderson tick.
...

I was waiting for this 'update' of your position.

I am not going to analyse, here, the catalogue of pro-Anderson writing by Martin and Paul since 1987/8. Suffice to say that one of the most noticeable aspects of it is the fact that most of the material that militates against Anderson has been almost totally missing until recent times. Thus it is only recently that some balance has been achieved. I have noticed the mutual support that these two authors give to each other. Needless to say their assessment of Anderson does not agree with that arrived at by such historians/authors as O Broin, Porter, Sugden and Campbell.

Suffice it to say the basic A-Z premise is that Anderson would simply not lie in his book or deceive his readers as they were 'brothers' rather than 'murderous terrorists or subversives'. Another of Martin's conclusions was that Anderson 'would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force's reputation.' Well, sorry, call me an old cynic if you like but I just don't accept that. I would rather join the company of O Broin, Porter, Sugden and Campbell and demur.

If you read Martin's book, The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper, you will find a chapter on Anderson 'The Man Who Knew Too Much: Sir Robert Anderson' and, yes, I do think it portrays him as a paragon of honesty and virtue. Paul largely agrees with the conclusions of this chapter and both authors have devoted thousands of words to the man and his conclusions. That created an imbalance (ask Simon Wood) and now the balance is being redressed.