Lawende was silenced

[Scott Nelson]

So Anderson had already made clear to his readers that the killer was not found while he was abroad before he came onto the subject of the Polish Jew.

Yes. What isn't clear is how the suspect came to the forefront of Anderson's conclusion.

[GUT]

Needless to say, I have never stated anywhere, directly or indirectly, that I believe I can "just look at an item and understand it without interpretation". So we have here yet another catastrophic failure of comprehension on Pierre's part.

No it's proof that either

He is the great scientist, sociologist, historian genius.

or

That he's full of it and has no idea what he's talking about.

I know which I think it is, especially when I show real historians his reasoning and the response in "This kid needs some lessons in basic historical methodology".

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Just to put everyone out of their misery, Pierre is a bullshit merchant who doesn't know anything about anything.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Yes. What isn't clear is how the suspect came to the forefront of Anderson's conclusion.

I agree.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Anderson had seen Macnaghten's memorandum. He had sixteen years to think about it.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Two things.

The house-to-house search took place after Anderson returned from where ever he had been during September and the first few days of October. He was to leave London again soon afterwards for the funeral of his father.

Interesting that on 23rd October 1888 Anderson counted five victims [I am assuming he was including Tabram], but two days later only sent Dr Bond medical evidence from four victims—Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes.

Hi Simon,

Two responses.

Anderson says in his memoir that, "During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him" and I'm essentially dealing with what Anderson described in his book, i.e. the message he conveyed to his readers, which is what Pierre seems to be concerned with. Going onto matters of known fact, the memo of 23 October in which Anderson admits that the police had not the slightest clue was certainly written after the house-to-house search so, in reality, the conclusion that the killer was not found as a result of any house-to-house search is unchanged.

What Anderson says in his note to the Home Secretary is that there had been five successive murders without any clue and there is no doubt, on any view, that Tabram was a murder victim in a Whitechapel killing. So it was a fact that five successive murders had been committed in the area. What Dr Bond was being asked was to indicate the surgical skill and anatomical knowledge possessed by the person or persons known as the Whitechapel Murderer (or Jack the Ripper). While there was only throat cutting in the case of Stride (this needed to be compared to the throat cutting in the other cases) but in the case of Tabram there was only stabbing which would not have left much room for comparison. It may also be that Dr Killeen did not prepare notes of his post-mortem examination so there was nothing to provide to Dr Bond - or, I would add, that the notes were not in a form suitable to be provided to Dr Bond or perhaps that Anderson did not have those notes in his possession because they were not originally provided to the police back in August 1888 - but I could only be speculating about this.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Anderson left London on 8/9 September.

Anderson, TLSOMOL—"On the night of my arrival in the French capital two more victims fell to the knife of the murder-fiend; and next day’s post brought me an urgent appeal from Mr. Matthews to return to London; and of course I complied.”

Four days passed.

On 5th October 1888 in a PS to a letter to Sir Charles Warren, Henry Matthews wrote—“I shall be very glad to hear whether Mr. Anderson’s health has permitted him to resume his duties.”

In a letter to Ruggles-Brise dated 6th October 1888 Matthews closed by remarking— “Anderson was to return today.”

I was wrong. The house-to-house search started on 3rd October.

Daily News, 4th October 1888—“Yesterday the large force of police and detectives drafted into Whitechapel made a house-to-house visitation and left a handbill.”

Anderson's father, Matthew, died in Ireland on 11th October. His funeral was on 15th October, and on 17th October 1888 the Dublin Daily Express reported Anderson leaving Kingstown.

You could speculate about what Anderson wrote until the cows come home and still be none the wiser. Anderson was not the most reliable of chroniclers.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Anderson was not the most reliable of chroniclers.

Nor, indeed, are you Simon, as you have demonstrated in this thread.

[David Orsam]

In a letter to Ruggles-Brise dated 6th October 1888 Matthews closed by remarking— “Anderson was to return today.”

Your chronological summary omits the extract from the Pall Mall Gazette of 8 October 1888 (included in a footnote to your book) which stated that Anderson 'is said to be in Switzerland'.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Said to be in Switzerland.

If Anderson was in Switzerland I'll eat your hat.

Regards,

Simon

[spyglass]

[QUOTE=Simon Wood;392123]Hi David,

Said to be in Switzerland.

If Anderson was in Switzerland I'll eat your hat.

Regards,

Simon[/QUOTE I remember Paddy Ashdown make that mistake recently after the election results.

[spyglass]

Hi David,

Said to be in Switzerland.

If Anderson was in Switzerland I'll eat your hat.

Regards,

Simon

I remember Paddy Ashdown make that mistake recently after the election result.

regards

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Said to be in Switzerland.

If Anderson was in Switzerland I'll eat your hat.

It's not the fact of him being said to be in Switzerland which is important (and according to his book, as I'm sure you know, he said he decided to spend the last week of his holiday in Paris, so my hat is perfectly safe) as the fact that the Pall Mall Gazette had no knowledge of him being in London. While it is true that Anderson also said in his book that he arrived in Paris on the day of the double event and received an urgent appeal to return to London the next day with which he complied, this does not seem to be consistent with a return to London five days later on 6 October but, as you have said yourself, Anderson is not the most reliable of chroniclers. The fact is that he was said to be expected to return to London on 6 October but the PMG thought he was abroad as at 8 October. Unless we have more information than this, I don't know how we can establish the exact date of his return for certain.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I would suggest it was on or after 6th October, but not as late as 8th October.

Please carry on believing Anderson travelled to Switzerland and then Paris.

There is a story somewhere that Anderson was in Paris at around the same time as the forger Richard Pigott [around 4th October, I believe, if memory serves]. Trouble is, Pigott was back in Ireland at this time.

Anyway, not too much salt on your hat, please. The doctor says it's bad for me.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Spyglass,

Who said it was a mistake?

Regards,

Simon