Letīs talk about that identification again

[Jonathan H]

Secret?

It wasn't that much of a secret.

From 1895 Anderson began reguarly telling people, and therefore the wider public, that he had identified the Ripper as a lunatic who could not be broguht to justice but at least had been 'safely caged' in an asylum.

In the same year, Swanson, may haved assured one reporter that the chief suepoct, presumablyh 'Kosminski', was edven more safely deceased.

It was not like CID had distance on the investigation by then, as William Grant was looking olike maybe the best suspect they had ever had, what with an allegedly positive identification by a Jewish witness -- yet the Jack aspect of the inquiry stalled.

Doesn't that sound familiar ..?

[Errata]

I always thought the prevalence of anti Semitism made the significance of the graffiti rather... lacking. I live in the American South, so I've seen the pictures of the cities here during the 50s and 60s. If Jack had been killing in Nashville then, the odds of him dumping the piece of apron on the doorway of a building with racist graffiti on it would have about one in five. Making it about as significant as throwing the piece of apron into a doorway with a blue door.

[Lechmere]

I haven't seen any sign of anyone on here being in need of reminding that there was anti-semitic feeling in the East End at the time of the Whitechapel Murders.
But just in case the point is too subtle, it was pointed out that there was even more anti-Jewish feeling in the 1900s when Anderson saw fit to blow the gaff on the Jewish suspect angle.

There was an organisation called the British Brother's League which had agitated very vociferously for legislation to restrict immigration and the main object of their displeasure were Jews. Their agitation - accompanied by a number of huge mass rallies in the East End - was largely responsible for the passing of the Aliens Act in 1905. They continued their activities up to and after the First World War.
During the First World War the East End Jewish population came under attack firstly because many of their shops had German sounding names, and then because until the Russian Revolution many Jewish inhabitants (many of whom did not have citizenship and so were not liable to conscription when it came in) were reluctant to enlist and fight for an ally of the Tsar. The agitation was led by organisations such as the British Workers League.

In short, the period from 1900 to 1918 was a lot more troublesome for the Jewsish community in the East End than 1888-1895, including that described by Hutt in 1888.

Yet Anderson did not receive any official criticism for 'blowing the gaff' on this issue, even though he was supposedly privy to this secret.

[Paddy]

Identification

Hi all, great posts !

Monty I enjoyed reading the evening news article, very just and true values and aspirations of the Victorian Era. Ripping ! Thats a bit how I see Anderson thinking.

Perhaps the police didnt go to arrest Kosminski, because they couldn't.
One of my millions of theories is could the identification have been covert and for internal purposes.

If the identification took place, was it allowed so an internal decision could be made to risk assess and able to reduce police man hours, in a period after the murders?

When one thinks of all the cases police must have had to deal with after all the hysteria surrounding the murders. I wonder how many men were arrested for saying he was going to "do for her like the Ripper" in drunken attacks on a woman? The press had reached many people who could or could not read. JTR fear had become part of thier cultural language.
Trying to police the fall out from that alone must have been very expensive for the force. Any case with Jack the Ripper mentioned would probably have to be duplicated and followed up smartish.

Would the detectives have been allowed because of a lesser internal law, to excercise a covert identification for slightly lower circumstancial evidence than absolute, but allowed so a finances could be adjusted?
I would just like to point out that I am not very up on law, so any feedback would be great. It just seems so reasonable !
Pat Marshall

[Jonathan H]

But he did receive public criticism from George Sims, who was known to be an upper class liberal with clubby contacts in the upper echelons of the police force, eg. the Assistant Commissioner (CID) Melville Macnaghten.

In 'The Referee' of April 17th 1910 (found by Chris Phillips) Sims is scathing:

'The latest "blazing indiscretion" by sir Robert Anderson has raised the question of how far a pensioned public servant is justified in making use of information which came to him in the course of his employment in a confidential position. It was the only the other day that the late esteemed head of the CID caused a storm of indignation among the King's Jewish subjects by stating that

Jack the Ripper

was a Jew, and that the Jews knew who he was and assisted him to evade capture. The statement went beyond ascertained facts.

The mad Polish Jew, to whom Sir Robert refers, was only one of three persons who were strongly suspected of being the genuine Jack. The final official report, which is in the archives of the Home Office, leaves the matter in doubt between the Polish Jew, who was afterwards put in a luantic asylum, a Russian doctor of vile character, and an English homicidal maniac, one Dr ____ , who had been in a lunatic asylum. In these circumstances it was certainly indiscreet of Sir Robert to plump for the Polish Jew, and to imply that many Jewish community in the East End were accessories after the fact.'

Sims goes on to chastise Anderson for the even bigger indiscretion about the Parnell affair. It is not so much that he is saying that Anderson is inaccurate. but that it is all an acute embarassment for the Conservative government,

Under the rude subheading: 'Anderson's Fairy Tales' Sims makes the crude anti-anti-Semitic joke that Sir Robert will reveal:

'... the names of the eminent Jewish financiers who assisted Jack the Ripper to evade arrest.'

In Anderson's defense, it can be argued that Sims was also backing up the ex-chief's claims.

That there was some kind of definitive ('final') report in the Home Office files which let an open verdict as to which of the three was the likeliest suspect, and that one of them was a Jew. Why can't Anderson as a professional crime-buster favour one of those suspects (Sims certainly did in his writings?!)

This is the first extant reference, of which I am aware, to the alternate version of Mac's report which is not 'Anberconway' -- which was explicitly favouring Druitt -- compared to the filed version, though in the Yard's archive, which claimed that any one of the trio could have been Jack (yet the document's 'awful glut' thesis clearly pushes for the suspect most obviously ruined by Miller's Ct.)

[Fisherman]

Well, yes, maybe... but again, maybe not. I mean, how are we to know what was going on in Anderson's mind? I have suspected that Anderson wanted to spill the beans, and perhaps even that he felt people had the right to know. Yes, and perhaps, to exonerate his old department somewhat. I think he kept this secret for 20 years then very consciously decided to reveal it, to a degree.

To have done so in 1890 or thereabouts would have been catastrophic.

Moreover, in my opinion, this is why Swanson underlined "it would ill become me to violate the unwritten rule of the service"... because Swanson felt the irony in that this was basically what Anderson was doing. Violating a secret that he was supposed to take with him to the grave, etc. etc

RH

Yeah, Rob, it can be viewed from opposite angles. Of course; most Ripper-related things can. And thereīs no telling how Andersonīs mind worked. So we will have to stand on different sides in this.
One of the reasons I ended up on the side I did, is that I have always thought that in the choice between Anderson and Swanson, when it comes to who is the more arrogant one, Iīd go with Anderson. Therefore, I see him as much less likely to accomodate any wish on behalf of the public to have information passed on to them.
Anderson was also a very religious man, and religious men tend to live their lives adjusting to the bids and rules given to them.

Stepping over to your side, though, an arrogant man can of course also be an ambitious man, a man that does not want his cleverness to go lost because of some old rule relating to his service. So your stance is a viable one, of course!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Thank you Dave and Patrica,

The subtlety of my post was indeed lost on Garry and Edward as the intention was not solely to show signs of Jewish resentment but also that understanding and support did exist outside of the Jewish community and, not only that, existed within a Police Force which was about to be dragged into the Case some 19 days or so later.

The same force some believe provided the witness for that Seaside Home identification.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Jonathan quotes Sims in one of his posts:

"The final official report, which is in the archives of the Home Office, leaves the matter in doubt between the Polish Jew, who was afterwards put in a luantic asylum, a Russian doctor of vile character, and an English homicidal maniac, one Dr ____ , who had been in a lunatic asylum. In these circumstances it was certainly indiscreet of Sir Robert to plump for the Polish Jew"

I would like to take the opportunity to once again point out that it is totally obvious that they did not know. They sifted what they had, and many would have faleen away during that process. In the end, there were three suspects left, who could not produce any alibis (they were never even in the position to ask Ostrog or Druitt, of course, and Kosminski turned more of a lunatic day by day) and who must therefore remain on the list of possibilities.
I can think of no reason to believe that the police had come to the conclusion that one of these men MUST have ben the Ripper. I fail to see what the kind of evidence would look like that could put it beyond doubt that the Ripper belonged to this group of men.

It therefore applies that the men were the best guesses the police had, and nothing else. It follows that there was no conclusive evidence in either case, and different policemen opted for different choices for that exact reason.

It cannot be said many times enough - nobody in the London police knew who the killer was.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Jonathan quotes Sims in one of his posts:

"The final official report, which is in the archives of the Home Office, leaves the matter in doubt between the Polish Jew, who was afterwards put in a luantic asylum, a Russian doctor of vile character, and an English homicidal maniac, one Dr ____ , who had been in a lunatic asylum. In these circumstances it was certainly indiscreet of Sir Robert to plump for the Polish Jew"

I would like to take the opportunity to once again point out that it is totally obvious that they did not know. They sifted what they had, and many would have faleen away during that process. In the end, there were three suspects left, who could not produce any alibis (they were never even in the position to ask Ostrog or Druitt, of course, and Kosminski turned more of a lunatic day by day) and who must therefore remain on the list of possibilities.
I can think of no reason to believe that the police had come to the conclusion that one of these men MUST have ben the Ripper. I fail to see what the kind of evidence would look like that could put it beyond doubt that the Ripper belonged to this group of men.

It therefore applies that the men were the best guesses the police had, and nothing else. It follows that there was no conclusive evidence in either case, and different policemen opted for different choices for that exact reason.

It cannot be said many times enough - nobody in the London police knew who the killer was.

The best,
Fisherman

By stating 'The final Official Report', Jonathan misleads slightly.

Monty

[Garry Wroe]

The subtlety of my post was indeed lost on Garry ... as the intention was not solely to show signs of Jewish resentment but also that understanding and support did exist outside of the Jewish community and, not only that, existed within a Police Force which was about to be dragged into the Case some 19 days or so later.

In which case, Monty, I can only assume that you missed the subtlety of my reference to the Goulston Street message when Warren ordered its erasure in order to protect the local Jewish community from an anticipated anti-Semitic backlash.

[Monty]

Hey Garry,

No, it was not lost on me. Apologies for not mentioning it in my post. I shall endeavour to be more attentitive to your needs.

Though my focus was on the City force, the force Hutt worked for.

Cheers
Monty

[Fisherman]

By stating 'The final Official Report', Jonathan misleads slightly.

Monty

I fail to see how it can be any misleading on behalf of Jonathan. Whatever grip Sims had on the matters is another thing altogether, and I donīt think we should hold Jonathan responsible for any shortcomings in that department.

It is of course valuable to make useful points about inherent mistakes in any quotation, but thatīs a slightly different matter, is it not?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

The word of a humble PC can hardly be taken as indicative of attitudes within the City Police.
The City Police of course did not want the Graffiti rubbed out before it could be photographed, so that could be taken as evidence that they were less attuned to Jewish needs when they were dragged into the case 19 or so days later.
Nevertheless, Anderson’s remarks with reference to the Jewish suspect were noted and commented on at the time yet he received no official censure.
The ‘final official report’ referred to is the Macnaghten Memorandum I think, which should be taken as more indicative of police attitudes towards the case than a semi anonymous letter to the press from a PC.

[Monty]

I fail to see how it can be any misleading on behalf of Jonathan. Whatever grip Sims had on the matters is another thing altogether, and I donīt think we should hold Jonathan responsible for any shortcomings in that department.

It is of course valuable to make useful points about inherent mistakes in any quotation, but thatīs a slightly different matter, is it not?

All the best,
Fisherman

Im not surprised that you fail to see Christer,

By stating 'Official Final Report, Jonathan gives the impression that Macnaghtens memorandum was the Polices official stance on suspects.

It was not. It was merely a newspaper article naming 3 men he felt more likely to have commited the murders than Cutbush.

Those 3 men were 3 amongnst many and were not the sole 3 concentrated on by the Police.

Monty

[Monty]

True Edward,

However it is clear that such an attitude, albeit by one person (and I suspect averages dictate Hutt wouldnt have been on his own, especially considering his Jewish brother PCs), did exist in the Force.

The ‘final official report’ referred to is the Macnaghten Memorandum I think, which should be taken as more indicative of police attitudes towards the case than a semi anonymous letter to the press from a PC

.

Yes, a memo for a Newspaper article from a man who never worked on the case at its peak should take preference over a letter by a mere PC (the letter writer was verified as Hutt) who did work on the case and lived in the area during the murder.

Selective to say the least.

Monty