Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Hi Gut,

Apologies for the late reply. I only just spotted your message.

Nothing to worry about here - my comment was just a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that certain posters (well, just one, actually) resort to immature nit-picking of other people's use of English, usually in lieu of actual arguments. You've got to be in a sorry state generally to resort to that sort of childish behaviour. It's a distraction, an obfuscation, and a sign of the intellectually empty.

But what's most annoying about the above tragic attempts to find fault with my posts is that the criticisms are invariably wrong. Either that or a simple typo is mischaracterised as an error that reflects genuine ignorance. I'm fully aware, for instance, of the origin of the phrase "toeing the line", but given that the "e" is bang next to the "w" on the keyboard, it shouldn't be too taxing to comprehend that I made a basic typo of the sort that we all make occasionally.

I'm embarrassed to have to explain the stinkingly obvious like this, but people do enjoy these petty off-topic disputes.

Back on topic, then, and I think we've pretty much established by now that Robert Anderson chose to "assume" that Monro was correct, despite having the opportunity to "assume" that Bond's contrary opinion was correct. We may thus permanently dispense with the idea that Anderson slavishly followed Bond's views all the time.

Sorry about all this silliness, Gut.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi GUT,

I thought Ben was referring cryptically to his own 'casual mistakes' (such as "towing" the line in his latest offering rather than toeing it ) and suggesting that I bring them up for weeks and weeks whenever he posts.

But he couldn't have been, because he says I am wrong every single time I see a mistake in his posts.

I'm not sure why he expected you to understand when his comment was not directed at you and made no sense anyway.

Oh and he clearly doesn't get 'nuance' either, hence his confusion that I was suggesting 'assume' meant something different back then, which wasn't my point at all.

I often 'assume' for the sake of argument that Hutch was the ripper, for instance, in order to debate with Ben the pros and cons of the case for his guilt. That doesn't mean I assume, as in 'accept', that Hutch really was the ripper - quite the opposite in fact. So when someone writes in a footnote: 'I am here assuming that...' there is a similar subtlety of meaning that escapes Ben.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

G'Day Ben

Let's dwell on the fact that you made this casual mistake for weeks and weeks, and let's bring it up whenever you post!

Please explain! as a in/famous politician once said.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

It really was a Hutchy old January for you, wasn’t it? I’m glad someone was paying attention when I expressed my intention to reach 12,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum, but bloody hell! It’s not that I don't feel immensely flattered to be the apparent flavour of your month, but you're a fine one to accuse me of "bad manners" when 50% of your posts to me consist of nothing but character assassination ("Ben constantly does this or that") and off-topic nit-picking.

The point which continues to be missed is that Anderson did not “have” to endorse any conclusion simply because it was “official”, not least because he was the person changed with overall responsibility for the Whitechapel murders investigation. Do some research into Anderson’s writings and you should gain a bit of insight into his personality. You’ll very quickly discover that meekly towing the party line was not exactly his bag, and nor was the habit of “distancing” himself from making decisions while preferring to remain “neutral”. Did he merely assume that some higher authority must have been correct when he stated that it was a “definitely ascertained fact" that the killer was a Polish Jew? I don’t think so.

Jon’s argument that Anderson must have agreed with Bond’s suggested time of death for Kelly (to the exclusion of Hutchinson’s evidence) is based on the mistaken opinion that Anderson was heavily influenced by Bond, and the Mylett case is cited as an example of this, despite it being very clear that Anderson was only ever really convinced of his OWN initial opinion that Mylett wasn’t a murder victim.

Anderson wrote his footnote on the McKenzie murder in the full knowledge of Bond’s report, in which the latter expressed his opinion that it was another ripper murder. For the “influenced by Bond” argument to have any validity here, Anderson would have needed to write:

“I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but Dr. Bond investigated the case on the spot and decided that it the work of the same sexual maniac who murdered the others, and not just an ordinary murder,”

Thus, bearing in mind that we’ve already done a poopoo on the idea that Anderson towed the official line of his police superiors, it is clear that he had the choice to “assume”, in his absence from London, that either Monro was correct or that Bond was. He chose Monro.

“This is what makes his grasp of late Victorian/Edwardian English occasionally appear to be lacking. I'm sure he appreciates that the subtle meanings behind even simple words and phrases can evolve from one generation to the next.”

Oh, but here it comes. The “words meant different things back then” argument, usually resorted to when the sources obstinately refuse to conform to what the theorist wants them to say, but here I must call your bluff. Where is the evidence that “assume” meant anything different back then to what it means now?

“I have no opinion on how much Anderson valued Bond's opinion”

I’m quite sure you don’t, just as you didn’t have an opinion on whether Isaacs was Astrakhan man, but that’s because you only appear to conduct the very basic research – seemingly the absolute minimum – that you think is required to give some sense of validity to your decision to wade into any Hutchinson debate going and give Ben a dressing down. It isn’t enough to keep saying things like “I’ve been following the argument...” I’m sure you have, and that’s great, but it’s also helpful to have a prior understanding of what is being discussed. You need to know about the writings of Anderson and Bond, and the source material associated therewith. You need to KNOW about other serial cases. Reviving arguments, taking sides, and fuelling animosity without properly acquainting yourself with the material under scrutiny (and not even having an opinion on it) isn’t particularly helpful, and nor does justifying it – very unconvincingly – on the grounds that you “care deeply about keeping an original source real”.

“he needn't get so tetchy when I occasionally pull him up on his own use of English”

But you’re wrong to do so every single time, so….I dunno, maybe stop it?

[Ben]

Yeah I can't type wgich should be which

How naughty of you, Gut!

Let's dwell on the fact that you made this casual mistake for weeks and weeks, and let's bring it up whenever you post!

Or not.

Greetings from Aus, by the way!

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

Yeah I can't type wgich should be which.

[GUT]

So often we today overlook that small part about the era in wgich it was written.

[GUT]

G'Day Caz

I have no opinion on how much Anderson valued Bond's opinion, or 'tother way round, but words are written to mean something, especially footnotes to clarify the writer's position. And I care deeply about keeping an original source real, and interpreting it in its immediate context as well as the era in which it was written. That's far more important than correcting every punctuation or spelling slip

So T R U E

[caz]

I'm with Jon on the interpretation of Anderson's wording and footnote here.

In context it is abundantly clear that Anderson is deliberately not giving what Ben calls an 'opinion' on the McKenzie case - never mind his 'conviction' that Bond was wrong and the Chief Commissioner, who investigated the case on the spot and 'decided' it was an ordinary murder, must have got it right.

With any language there are nuances which help the reader to interpret the writer's intentions, and quite often these go right over Ben's head in his rush to whichever judgement best suits his cause at the time. This is what makes his grasp of late Victorian/Edwardian English occasionally appear to be lacking. I'm sure he appreciates that the subtle meanings behind even simple words and phrases can evolve from one generation to the next.

In this instance, if Anderson had wanted, or felt qualified to agree with the official line, he could have saved himself the trouble of writing that clarifying footnote. In this context 'I am here assuming that...' does not imply agreement at all (as it tends to do these days if one is 'assuming' something to be the case). Back then it would have warranted a different, stronger form of words, along the lines of: 'I am here fully endorsing the Chief Commissioner's conclusion...', except that his original statement of 'fact', without any clarification, would have sufficed in that case.

By writing 'I am here assuming that...' and observing that Monro 'decided' - in Anderson's absence from London - that it was an ordinary murder, Anderson is distancing himself from that decision, or being neutral about it at best. He is in effect saying: [For the purpose of my original statement] 'I am having to rely on the correctness of Monro's decision to attribute this murder to another hand.'

However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series.*

* I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.

I have no opinion on how much Anderson valued Bond's opinion, or 'tother way round, but words are written to mean something, especially footnotes to clarify the writer's position. And I care deeply about keeping an original source real, and interpreting it in its immediate context as well as the era in which it was written. That's far more important than correcting every punctuation or spelling slip (which incidentally Ben does beyond the point of bad manners with Jon's posts, so he needn't get so tetchy when I occasionally pull him up on his own use of English).

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

A much better argument is that Anderson's original conviction (i.e. that Mylett wasn't a homicide) was so strong that he kept calling in different doctors until he found one who would support his initial opinion. I'm not saying this is my view, necessarily, but it has been advanced many times before. It has also been suggested that Anderson had other personal and political reasons for not wanting Mylett to be a murder victim. NO, we're not about to thrash out those arguments on this completely unrelated thread. I'm simply pointing out that there are other potential reasons for Anderson supporting Bond in the Mylett case which, while not without their own flaws, are better than your suggestion that Anderson slavishly followed Bond.

Certainly it is possible, equally it is just as possible that Anderson did not privately accept Hutchinson's story (in deference to Abberline), so was easily convinced by Bond's conviction in both the Kelly case & the Mylett case.

Therefore, in both scenario's Anderson would still be said to follow Bond.

My grasp of the English language is demonstrably superior to yours, so I wouldn't go there if I were you. Criticise Sir Robert's alleged "fact"/"assumption" inconsistency if you must, but don't pick immature fights with me please.

It seemed to be a popular approach for you.

[Ben]

So you see, Anderson was persuaded away from the consensus, by Bond.

Yes.

You'll also notice that he ended up supporting the conclusion he had jumped to from the outset.

Interesting "coincidence" that.

A much better argument is that Anderson's original conviction (i.e. that Mylett wasn't a homicide) was so strong that he kept calling in different doctors until he found one who would support his initial opinion. I'm not saying this is my view, necessarily, but it has been advanced many times before. It has also been suggested that Anderson had other personal and political reasons for not wanting Mylett to be a murder victim. NO, we're not about to thrash out those arguments on this completely unrelated thread. I'm simply pointing out that there are other potential reasons for Anderson supporting Bond in the Mylett case which, while not without their own flaws, are better than your suggestion that Anderson slavishly followed Bond.

Which then brings into question your grasp of the English language. A suggested fact, when qualified by an assumption, reduces the suggested fact to an assumption.

My grasp of the English language is demonstrably superior to yours, so I wouldn't go there if I were you. Criticise Sir Robert's alleged "fact"/"assumption" inconsistency if you must, but don't pick immature fights with me please.

[Wickerman]

... In Mylett's case, that was Bond (although there are good reasons to believe he held this conviction even before Bond arrived on the scene),...

We have his own words in writing to that effect.
Anderson did suspect that Mylett was not a case of murder, initially.
However, after hearing that Dr Brownfield claimed it was murder Anderson called in Mackellar & Bond, including Hibbert.
Anderson was persuaded by Brownfield, Mackellar, Bond & Hibbert that indeed it was a case of murder.
Later, Dr Bond viewed the body a second time and changed his mind leading to Anderson following suit, but still in deference to Brownfield, Mackellar & by this time Dr Phillips.

So you see, Anderson was persuaded away from the consensus, by Bond.

Unreliable in what sense here?

Well, if you want to look up the threads which analyze the memoirs and highlite the errors, be my guest.

Anderson stated it was a fact that Kelly was the last murder, which means that's how he regarded it - a fact.

Which then brings into question your grasp of the English language. A suggested fact, when qualified by an assumption, reduces the suggested fact to an assumption. That is simple basic knowledge.

I could argue the reverse, that his reference to a "fact" undermines his claim that McKenzie's non-inclusion on the ripper's murder-sheet is only an "assumption.

??

However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series.*

* I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac.

I'm sure you will manipulate it any way you choose.

[Ben]

Which is negated by the fact Anderson was involved in the Kelly case and the official decision

His "involvement" need only have extended to examining the reports and opinions of the doctors and his fellow police officials. He wasn't a medic himself, but in cases of conflict amongst the medical personel, he had simply to endorse whatever opinion he found the more persuasive. In Mylett's case, that was Bond (although there are good reasons to believe he held this conviction even before Bond arrived on the scene), whereas in the case of McKenzie, Anderson supported Monro and Phillips over Bond.

Anderson irrefutably disagreed with Bond on the subject of McKenzie.

No amount of obfuscation from you is ever going to alter that.

It is the only opinion we have on record from Anderson on the subject.

I realise this is a major problem for your controversial and wrong theory that relies on Bond dictating Anderson's every view on the medical evidence, but it won't go away, and unnecessary reminders that Anderson was writing years after the murders is just your way of trying to sow the seeds of the zero-evidence possibility that Anderson - maybe, just maybe - supported Bond's view at the time.

Memoirs in general are proven to be highly unreliable

Unreliable in what sense here? He accurately reported the name and date of the Castle Alley attack, and he correctly remembered that it was officially attributed to a hand other than the ripper's, so where did he go wrong? Did he fail to write "But Bond disagreed! My medical mentor, of course! It's all coming back to mee now. Anything he says goes. Bollocks to Monro. McKenzie was another who fell afoul of that devilish Polish Jew alright. Ohhh yes!"...?

That would have been of assistance to your theory, but I doubt it ever went though his head or anyone else's somehow. "". Or does that one require the up-and-down laughy face that you keep using?

No it does not because he qualifies his use of the term 'fact' in a footnote by saying that he is "assuming" Monro was correct. There was a reason why he included this footnote, the reason is all too apparent, that he did not wish the reader to think he was certain over what he wrote.

Errr...no.

Anderson stated it was a fact that Kelly was the last murder, which means that's how he regarded it - a fact. Challenge his opinion all you want, but don't shoot the messenger when I'm only recording exactly what he said.

Therefore, such a qualification reduces the impact of 'fact' (in your quote) to 'assumption',

Nope.

I could argue the reverse, that his reference to a "fact" undermines his claim that McKenzie's non-inclusion on the ripper's murder-sheet is only an "assumption.

[Wickerman]

But Anderson did not follow the advice of Bond in the McKenzie case, that is established. Therefore, the possibility that he did not follow Dr Bond's opinion in the Kelly case is established.

Which is negated by the fact Anderson was involved in the Kelly case and the official decision, but was not involved in the McKenzie case, as he was away on leave, so not involved in the official decision.
Therefore, we have no knowledge of Anderson's opinion at the time of the McKenzie murder.

And it is not merely a "claim of mine" that Anderson disagreed with Bond in the McKenzie case. It is an indisputable fact, and one that you have failed to challenge or obfuscate successfully.

Two points.
In Anderson's memoirs he claims Kosminski was a suspect, he also claims to 'assume' Monro was correct.

The facts are, that in both instances we have no written opinion from Anderson during the murders that Kosminski was truly a suspect, and likewise we have no written opinion from Anderson on whether he agreed or disagreed with Bond in the McKenzie case.

In both instances we are using his already questionable memoirs in an attempt to resolve questions from 20+ years earlier. A highly questionable course of action.
Memoirs in general are proven to be highly unreliable and the more discriminate researcher will not use them as evidence without external means of verification.

Again, let's examine what Anderson actually said.

However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series. (my bold)

If that doesn't betray a "conviction" that McKenzie wasn't a ripper victim, I don't know what does.

No it does not because he qualifies his use of the term 'fact' in a footnote by saying that he is "assuming" Monro was correct. There was a reason why he included this footnote, the reason is all too apparent, that he did not wish the reader to think he was certain over what he wrote.

* I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac. 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.

Therefore, such a qualification reduces the impact of 'fact' (in your quote) to 'assumption', the former being dependent on the latter being true, which he could not say for sure.

[Ben]

Yes, Anderson did follow the advise of Dr Bond in the Mylett case, that is established. Therefore, the possibility that he also followed Dr Bond's opinion in the Kelly case is established

But Anderson did not follow the advice of Bond in the McKenzie case, that is established. Therefore, the possibility that he did not follow Dr Bond's opinion in the Kelly case is established.

This is what you're failing to understand. And it is not merely a "claim of mine" that Anderson disagreed with Bond in the McKenzie case. It is an indisputable fact, and one that you have failed to challenge or obfuscate successfully.

All that needs to be established is that Anderson 'did' follow Bonds opinion, not that he had to do it every time.

I understand that, but the problem for you is that it is also fully established that Anderson did not follow Bond's opinion. And don't keeping making the irrelevant point that we don't know what Anderson's opinion was at the time. We know full well that he was away from London at the time, and only working on the basis of information received, from which it is factually established that he rejected Bond's opinion and supported Monro instead. Do you have any sort of evidence that Anderson ever considered McKenzie a ripper victim? No, you don't, so let's not try to conjure up some from nowhere.

Your only source is a vague sentence from his memoirs written 21 years later where he says he "assumed" Monro was correct, not that he was convinced of it.

Again, let's examine what Anderson actually said.

However the fact may be explained, it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the "Jack-the-Ripper " series. (my bold)

If that doesn't betray a "conviction" that McKenzie wasn't a ripper victim, I don't know what does.

He was evidently very "convinced"; convinced that Bond's medical assessment was wrong.

It is understandable that Anderson uses caution, although Bond is dead by 1910, Monro is still alive and the 'old department' are sure to read these memoirs. Anderson is not about to state his old boss was wrong, so it is preferable to merely state he 'assumed' he was right.

This is getting more and more ridiculous.

So now Anderson is lying in print about the McKenzie, according to you? Are you seriously suggesting that he only pretended to endorse Monro's conclusion, because Monro was alive and Bond wasn't? So despite the actual evidence that Anderson shared the view of Monro and Phillips, you insist that he secretly thought the opposite - that McKensie was a ripper victim? I realise that McKenzie episode is fatal to your theory regarding Anderson slavishly following Bond, but you can't go around changing the evidence to say the precise opposite of what it actually says.