Was Anderson Prejudice?

[Joshua Rogan]

I don't know that Anderson was prejudiced, but I do think it's possible he was a bit muddled in his recollections. Especially as he was out of the country for much of the investigation. If it wasn"t for the somewhat dubious marginalia naming Kosminski, we all know where the fingers of suspicion would be pointing. There's only one known suspect who fits the bill of being a Polish jew who was shielded by his family and unhesitatingly identified when confronted by a witness, and that's Piser.

[Darryl Kenyon]

who largely spoke Yiddish (so perhaps did not have a good command of English)

I would disagree with this Sean, Kosminski's English seems decent during the unmuzzled dog incident.

[Sam Flynn]

I would disagree with this Sean, Kosminski's English seems decent during the unmuzzled dog incident.

PC Borer: Is that an unmuzzled dog?
Kosmisnki: I sorry? A vot?
PC Borer: "UN... MUZZLED... DOG"
Kosminsky: Ah! Mazeltov to you too!

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know that Anderson was prejudiced, but I do think it's possible he was a bit muddled in his recollections. Especially as he was out of the country for much of the investigation. If it wasn"t for the somewhat dubious marginalia naming Kosminski, we all know where the fingers of suspicion would be pointing. There's only one known suspect who fits the bill of being a Polish jew who was shielded by his family and unhesitatingly identified when confronted by a witness, and that's Piser.

Or he lied. And Isenschmidt was also ID'd by a witness, and he was institutionalized shortly after Annies murder.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Abby,

I don't think SRA was particularly prejudiced against Jews.

Macnaghten was already punting Druitt from his memorandum, and both of them knew that Ostrog had an iron-clad alibi.

So that left the Polish Jew.

It was a matter of Hobson's Choice.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

I don't know that Anderson was prejudiced, but I do think it's possible he was a bit muddled in his recollections. Especially as he was out of the country for much of the investigation. If it wasn"t for the somewhat dubious marginalia naming Kosminski, we all know where the fingers of suspicion would be pointing. There's only one known suspect who fits the bill of being a Polish jew who was shielded by his family and unhesitatingly identified when confronted by a witness, and that's Piser.

I think its relevant to remember that the context of that ID was identification Of Leather Apron, that timing with the wet apron in the Hanbury backyard necessitated the clearing of suspicions against him for the Ripper cases.

[Joshua Rogan]

I think its relevant to remember that the context of that ID was identification Of Leather Apron, that timing with the wet apron in the Hanbury backyard necessitated the clearing of suspicions against him for the Ripper cases.

So what are you suggesting, Michael? That Anderson lied about the reason for the witness refusing to testify, and it wasn't because he was a fellow jew, but because the Met wanted Piser cleared to alleviate the anti-jewish feeling?

[seanr]

Or he lied. And Isenschmidt was also ID'd by a witness, and he was institutionalized shortly after Annies murder.

As far as I know, there is no record of Isenschmidt being ID'd by a witness. The police certainly did want to submit Isenschmidt to an identification, but they were prevented from doing so by the doctors taking care of the suspect.

The witnesses in question were the people from Mrs Fiddymont's pub. None of whom, as far as I'm aware were Jewish.

[Simon Wood]

Sir Robert Anderson was certainly a liar.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sir Robert Anderson was certainly a liar.

If he was a liar, then the one whopping lie he told was his claim that he and everyone else involved in the investigation had come to the conclusion that the murderer was a Jew at a time when they did not even have a Jewish suspect!

In spite of his grand statements intended to convey the overwhelming strength of his case, he did nevertheless write as though well aware of how weak it was.

He mentions no arrest, no interrogation, no searching of any premises, no discovery of any incriminating evidence, and no specific physical characteristic of the alleged suspect that would have facilitated his identification.

When looked at critically, there is no substance to his claims whatsoever and a careful reading of them reveals that nothing whatsoever could have given Anderson any reason for suspicion prior to the man's incarceration.

The fact that Anderson exercised his right to remain silent when publicly challenged simply reinforces the case that what he wrote was not true and that he knew it was not true.

Those who defend Anderson from the charge of antisemitism have never quite managed to explain how someone who was not anti-Jewish could nevertheless manage to make three charges against the Jews when one would obviously have done.

The long list of improbabilities in Anderson's ramblings is truly staggering: the police concluding that the murderer was a Jew even though they had already concluded that he was an anti-Semite; the Kosminskis are low-class Jews, even though Isaac Kosminski is a freemason; the Jews prefer to allow one of their own to continue to eviscerate Gentile women to informing on him; a Jewish witness prefers to allow the evisceration to continue rather than testify against a fellow Jew; Kosminski is not of Jewish appearance even though his brothers are; the attempt to prosecute the suspect is simply dropped as soon as a Jew refuses to cooperate.

Anderson achieved the doubtful distinction of blowing his own trumpet by relying on that well-worn and trusted tactic of blaming you-know-whom.

[Wickerman]

We have commonly referred to Anderson's so-called 'evidence' as Andersons Fairy Tales, and this is not to simply be flippant.
The complication surfaces when we read Swanson's notes, because he highly respected Anderson, though after carefully reading those notes it becomes clear Swanson is merely clarifying Anderson's theory, not agreeing with it.
We have no idea what Swanson thought himself.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We have commonly referred to Anderson's so-called 'evidence' as Andersons Fairy Tales, and this is not to simply be flippant.
The complication surfaces when we read Swanson's notes, because he highly respected Anderson, though after carefully reading those notes it becomes clear Swanson is merely clarifying Anderson's theory, not agreeing with it.
We have no idea what Swanson thought himself.

Would you agree with me that there is no inside information in Swanson's marginalia to suggest that he was personally familiar with the events he described?

And if so, does that not in turn suggest that any clarification of Anderson's published claims may have come from Anderson himself?

In that case, the corroboration conferred by Swanson on Anderson's claims is nothing more than an illusion.

[Wickerman]

Would you agree with me that there is no inside information in Swanson's marginalia to suggest that he was personally familiar with the events he described?

There is nothing to indicate Swanson was personally involved, otherwise I would expect a phrase similar to "where we took him" as opposed to "him being sent by us".
It also could mean the infirmary took him on orders from Scotland Yard, so no actual police involvement in the transfer.

And if so, does that not in turn suggest that any clarification of Anderson's published claims may have come from Anderson himself?

I'm not sure Anderson is the type to chit-chat with the lower ranks, but given Swanson's position he more likely learned of the sequence of events from reports passing across his desk.

In that case, the corroboration conferred by Swanson on Anderson's claims is nothing more than an illusion.

I wouldn't draw that conclusion.
I think Swanson has provided some confused details, but he did identify Anderson's suspect.
What Swanson knew about the I.D. he learned from official paperwork, not from Anderson.
I could be wrong and Anderson may have been present, but I see nothing in his notes to indicate this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks for your reply, Jon.

If Swanson learned the extra details from official paperwork, then he should have known the name of the witness, the name of the street in which the surveillance took place, the name of Kosminski's brother, and the dates of the events he described, yet he provides none of those details.

How likely is it that Swanson would have derived his incorrect information about Kosminski's death from official papers rather than something he heard said?

Is it likely that he read in an official report that Kosminski's hands were tied behind his back?

Is it not much more likely that it would have stated merely that he was placed under arrest?

[Wickerman]

Thanks for your reply, Jon.

If Swanson learned the extra details from official paperwork, then he should have known the name of the witness, the name of the street in which the surveillance took place, the name of Kosminski's brother, and the dates of the events he described, yet he provides none of those details.

Avoiding specifics is just the police way, his only intent was to provide the name of the suspect, I see nothing suspicious there.

How likely is it that Swanson would have derived his incorrect information about Kosminski's death from official papers rather than something he heard said?

Don't forget, the City police did much to help the Met. in their investigations, these particulars may have come to Swanson from reports by his equal at City, McWilliams. They kept each other updated on regular intervals. Given how long after the events Swanson was writing his marginalia, any confusion of details I suspect are his doing.

Is it likely that he read in an official report that Kosminski's hands were tied behind his back?

Is it not much more likely that it would have stated merely that he was placed under arrest?

Lets assume it was the institution who conducted the transfer (most likely option), the suspect not being under arrest, nor were the police trained in handling mental patients, the most police involvement was possibly two or three local constables (not Scotland Yard), who were there to avoid any attempt at escaping, then if they had any altercations it would have been mentioned in a report as they would feel a need to justify the use of handcuffs, or some means of restraint.

The witness was not arrested due to him being incarcerated, he can't be charged with a crime if he is deemed 'insane', the law considers such a person as 'unable to defend himself' therefore cannot be charged with anything. So, any police involvement can only be as a cautionary measure.