Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

- 17th July, Monro's report to the Home Office (looks like a Ripper murder).

- 18th July, Bond writes to Anderson (in absentia), (this is a Ripper murder).

- Anderson never consulted with Bond.

- 14th August, Monro receives official conclusion from Dr Phillips, "it was an ordinary murder".

- 1910, Anderson writes in memoirs that Monro believed McKenzie was "an ordinary murder".


Is that any clearer?

[Wickerman]

Post Mortem Report by Dr Brownfield
The medical report revealed evidence purporting that Mylett had never given birth, this time contradicting the statement made by her mother (who said Rose Mylett gave birth to a son in 1881). It was not a son but a daughter Florence.

Hi Pat.

Here is what I was talking about, read the first post.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5575

[Paddy]

Link

Wickerman....

Yes, thanks for the link, I see what you were getting at now....

Pat......................

[Ben]

Is that any clearer?

Clear? Yes.

Relevant? No.

Helpful to your argument regarding Bond's assessment of Kelly's time of death? No. The precise opposite, in fact.

Anderson never consulted with Bond.

Who cares?

Anderson knew precisely what Bond's views on the McKenzie murder were, and yet he still disagreed with them.

I don't need to have "consulted" with Patricia Cornwell to have an opinion that her theory's crap.

[Wickerman]

Anderson knew precisely what Bond's views on the McKenzie murder were, and yet he still disagreed with them.

We have no paperwork from Anderson concerning the McKenzie murder in 1889, we have no idea what his thoughts were.

In his memoirs written in 1910 Anderson is acknowledging the Millers Court murder was the last of the series. But, that statement is based on his assumption that the official conclusion held by Monro was the correct conclusion.

This is what he meant when 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 it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac".

This is not a declaration that he disagreed with Bond, or that he agreed with Monro. Anderson is making an assumption that the official conclusion was the correct one, he is not sharing his personal belief.

Anderson's marginal note needs to be taken in context, not in isolation.

[Ben]

Your argument that Anderson slavishly sucked up whatever Bond's opinion happened to be at the time has been proven to be utterly without foundation. You're now trying to conjure up some non-existent evidence of Anderson maaaaybe thinking McKenzie was a ripper victim once upon a time, but that never happened. So what you need to deal with and accept is the fact that:

(a) Bond believed McKenzie was a ripper victim. No evidence that he ever thought otherwise.

(b) Anderson believed McKensie was NOT a ripper victim, but rather an "ordinary murder". No evidence that he ever thought otherwise.

Them's the facts, Jon, and it's no use you trying to fiddle with them in an effort to salvage your erroneous views on the Kelly murder.

You quote Anderson:

"but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac"

So if you're insistent on arguing that Anderson was influenced by anyone, it was his immediate superior, James Monro, and NOT Dr. Bond. If Anderson had written something more along the lines of "Despite the official conclusion being that McKenzie was just an ordinary murder, Dr. Bond believed otherwise, and I'm inclined, as ever, to trust his judgment", then you'd have an argument.

But he didn't.

So you don't.

[Wickerman]

Your argument that Anderson slavishly sucked up whatever Bond's opinion happened to be at the time has been proven to be utterly without foundation.

Its a historical fact that Anderson accepted Bond's opinion over the majority view in the Mylett case. This you cannot change or misrepresent.

You're now trying to conjure up some non-existent evidence of Anderson maaaaybe thinking McKenzie was a ripper victim once upon a time, but that never happened.

Not at all.
You have no opinion from Anderson during the McKenzie investigation, so you are in no position to claim he agreed or disagreed with anyone.
Even in his memoirs 21 years later Anderson does not say he agreed with either party, Monro or Bond, only that he "assumes" the official conclusion to be correct.
That much is clear enough.

So if you're insistent on arguing that Anderson was influenced by anyone, it was his immediate superior, James Monro,

Once again, Anderson is acknowledging the official conclusion, in deference to no-one.

[Ben]

Its a historical fact that Anderson accepted Bond's opinion over the majority view in the Mylett case. This you cannot change or misrepresent.

I'm not challenging this.

We have an instance of Anderson agreeing with Bond, and we have an instance of Anderson disagreeing with Bond. Your claim that Anderson always supported Bond is therefore invalid. It cannot possibly be true.

You have no opinion from Anderson during the McKenzie investigation, so you are in no position to claim he agreed or disagreed with anyone.

Do you have any evidence that Anderson EVER supported Bond's view that McKenzie was a ripper victim? No you don't. You have nothing. Anderson's statement with regard to McKenzie not being a ripper victim is all we have on record from Anderson on this subject.

Once again, Anderson is acknowledging the official conclusion

Yes, and he acknowledged it in the full and certain knowledge that Bond did not share the view of this "official conclusion". He's "assuming" that Monro was correct in his determination, and that Bond was wrong.

[Wickerman]

We have an instance of Anderson agreeing with Bond, and we have an instance of Anderson disagreeing with Bond.
Your claim that Anderson always supported Bond is therefore invalid. It cannot possibly be true.

Are you sure you have not dropped that 'always' in there on purpose?

I am too careful to use absolutes in a debate where we are only discussing two cases. 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.
If it could never be established in any case then that would weaken my proposal, the fact it is established, and in the very next murder a month later, demonstrates the viability of my suggestion.

It is your claim that Anderson did not agree with Bond in the McKenzie case.
There are two problems with this claim of yours.
1 - All that needs to be established is that Anderson 'did' follow Bonds opinion, not that he had to do it every time.
2 - You have no reports from the McKenzie case that show what Anderson thought when he returned from being on leave.

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.

He's "assuming" that Monro was correct in his determination, and that Bond was wrong.

So you agree an assumption is not a conviction?
That is all we are talking about - Anderson was not convinced, but just for the sake of stating the Millers Court murder was the last in the series, he is assuming Monro was correct.

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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.