Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[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

[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

[GUT]

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

[GUT]

Yeah I can't type wgich should be which.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[Ben]

I also noticed that in a moment of - gosh! - utter thoughtless, criminal madness, I made the cardinal sin of adding an extra "w" in "toed", and then later on - unmitigated plonker that I am - I wrote:

"...isn’t particularly helpful, and nor does justifying it..."

When I actually meant:

"nor IS justifying it...".

Shockingly...truly shockingly, I've even written "your", on occasion, when I meant to write "you're", and vice versa.

[Debra A]

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.

Jon- The standard line is that it was Anderson who put pressure on Bond to alter his opinion to accidental death in the Mylett case after he [Bond] initially agreed with the other doctors on murder by strangulation.

[Debra A]

I think Phillips was only dragged into things theoretically too? By Brownfield, to support his strangulation theory and possible link to the Ripper with Mylett?

[GUT]

G'day Bem

Naughty boy, Ive nver made a tipo in my life, and the bloody "I" key on my keybord sticks.

[GUT]

And Ben

Sorry about all this silliness, Gut.

Silliness is good/

[caz]

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.

Indeed, Ben. How humble of you to admit it. I take it you refer to all those instances where you gleefully add (sic) when quoting from Jon's posts - as if you had any room to talk.

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.

Once is a typo, Ben. Twice may be a coincidental typo. But this is a recent phrase you seem to have picked up, and I've seen you use "towing the/this line" at least three if not four times in at least two Hutchinson threads, without making any other typos, and in the context of taking or following a certain position - not putting one's toes on a starting line, as the correct expression means. So be a big boy and admit you are protesting too much.

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've' established no such thing, Ben. I agree with Jon that the language used by Anderson, in conjunction with the reality of the situation, merely indicates that since he wasn't there at the time to form his own opinion, the correctness of his stated conclusion relies on the correctness of Monro's opinion - which he is self-evidently not judging either way, hence the qualifying footnote to that effect.

Love,

Caz
X