Was Anderson Prejudice?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The fact that Anderson claimed that Scotland Yard decided that the murderer must be a Polish Jew, in the absence of any evidence, and that he was being protected by Polish Jews, again in the absence of any evidence, proves that Anderson was prejudiced.

The Whitechapel Murders case was not the only case in which Anderson falsely accused Polish Jews of being murderers or accessories to a murder.

And that proves his prejudice beyond any doubt.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Another day in the sun for sweeping statements!

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point. For I may say at once that "undiscovered murders" are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not within that category...

In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.

(ANDERSON)


He was obviously prejudiced against Polish Jews.

He decided that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew BEFORE he focused on any particular suspect.

You cannot get much more prejudiced than that.

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1)


In what way was anything I wrote sweeping?

[barnflatwyngarde]

I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

(from the serialisation of Anderson's memoirs in Blackwoods, March 1910)


He was obviously prejudiced against Polish Jews.

He decided that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew BEFORE he focused on any particular suspect.

You cannot get much more prejudiced than that.

Another day in the sun for sweeping statements!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I believe Andersons statement from his memoirs regarding the ID was "“...the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him, but he refused to give evidence against him"

He didnt say that the witness refused to id the man when he learned he was Jewish. I think on the whole Andersons comments do reveal a prejudice, but whether that was about the Jewish faith in general or more specifically Jewish immigrants isnt clear.

I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him; but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.

(from the serialisation of Anderson's memoirs in Blackwoods, March 1910)


He was obviously prejudiced against Polish Jews.

He decided that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew BEFORE he focused on any particular suspect.

You cannot get much more prejudiced than that.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe Andersons statement from his memoirs regarding the ID was "“...the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him, but he refused to give evidence against him"

He didnt say that the witness refused to id the man when he learned he was Jewish. I think on the whole Andersons comments do reveal a prejudice, but whether that was about the Jewish faith in general or more specifically Jewish immigrants isnt clear.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As far as I am aware Sunny, the witness [ according to Anderson ] learned that the suspect was a fellow Jew .
Perhaps he wasn't told but found out through his own probing, so to speak. I would hazard a guess he would be interested in who the person was he identified.

Regards Darryl

How long would such probing have taken?

It could hardly have been done by the witness questioning the suspect and the police would not have given the witness confidential information.

And even before the witness could begin probing, the suspect would have been charged with murder.

He would not have been returned to his home, as related by Swanson.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oops! Sorry, I forgot where the goalposts were.

I haven't moved any goalposts.

No Jewish policemen were involved in the investigation of the Whitechapel Murders.


And by the way, this is just a polite reminder that I have never had a response from you to my refutation of your suggestion in # 6 of

The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

that Anderson's witness was Joseph Hyam Levy

which I posted in # 493 and # 497 of

The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

and again in my # 4, # 11, and # 31 of

6th October letter

I quote from my # 31:

Can you please explain why Levy would have needed to be reminded that his relative, whom he is alleged to have recognised in Duke Street, was Jewish?

I pointed out in the same # 31 that you had made a similar mistake in a dissertation entitled An Alternate Kosminski Suspect and Police Witness: Some Perspectives and Points to Ponder:

You make the same mistake of thinking it possible that Anderson's witness could have known the suspect before he saw him in Church Passage.

[Scott Nelson]

Oops! Sorry, I forgot where the goalposts were.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I must say, though, that I fear that trying to identify Jewish policemen in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century could be just as challenging as trying to find Polish Jews who assaulted Gentile women in the same area and period.

Richard Brown did not serve in the East End nor even in the City of London.

[Scott Nelson]

And what, pray, is a fact?

Richard Brown was Jewish.

PC Richard Brown - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

There were likely others. One cannot tell a person's religion by name alone.

[Wickerman]

Thank you, Wick. That brings up an interesting point. How did a "suspected person" differ from what today we would call a person of interest? And was a Suspected Person the same as a Suspect? And was everybody back then on the same page with their terminology?

A potential can of worms here?

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Reading that portion of the Police Code we see that you could be charged as a Suspected Person, which likely means Charged under suspicion of some offense.
The section explains that all constables are to be aware that it is preferable that an arrest be made for an offense as opposed to a Charge of Suspicion of an offense.

"Apprehension, therefore, of prisoners as suspected persons cannot be encouraged, and if of frequent occurrence suggests the inference that the officer effecting them possesses little skill in keeping discreet observation." (p.175).

The paragraph goes on to explain that an exception can be made if the observed person recognizes he is being watched and then attempts an escape. Such circumstances may then justify an arrest as a Suspected Person.
The section ends with the reminder that caution is to be exercised, as an arrest as a Suspected Person if not deemed justifiable may result in a civil charge being made against the officer.

[c.d.]

Persons of Interest is not a term found in the Police Code of 1889, but Suspected Persons does exist.

Thank you, Wick. That brings up an interesting point. How did a "suspected person" differ from what today we would call a person of interest? And was a Suspected Person the same as a Suspect? And was everybody back then on the same page with their terminology?

A potential can of worms here?

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Consider the 'fact' we do not have a complete list of the names of Met. constables on duty through 1888.
Then clearly any 'absolute' claim to knowing there were no Jewish constables is simply not provable.
It is nothing more than an assumption.

I had a feeling that the assumption word was about to be put to use again.

I really don't want to have an argument with you because your # 83 is so similar to what I have been arguing all along, most recently in # 454 of A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899.

I must say, though, that I fear that trying to identify Jewish policemen in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century could be just as challenging as trying to find Polish Jews who assaulted Gentile women in the same area and period.

[Wickerman]

And what, pray, is a fact?

Consider the 'fact' we do not have a complete list of the names of Met. constables on duty through 1888.
Then clearly any 'absolute' claim to knowing there were no Jewish constables is simply not provable.
It is nothing more than an assumption.

[Wickerman]

I have a question -- did the police at the time ever use the expression "person of interest" or something comparable? I guess I am trying to determine if "suspect" always meant an actual suspect as opposed to person of interest.

c.d.

Persons of Interest is not a term found in the Police Code of 1889, but Suspected Persons does exist.