Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by Simon Wood 1 minute ago.
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by cjmorley 9 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by cjmorley 32 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by rjpalmer 53 minutes ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Batman 2 hours ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Fisherman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (56 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - (19 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic - (5 posts)
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > Anderson, Sir Robert

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-15-2009, 06:48 AM
Stewart P Evans Stewart P Evans is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,994
Default Earlier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Clack View Post
It's mentioned in Martin Fido's Crimes and Detection book (page 123 Hardback) which is 1987.
Rob
Well done Rob, it certainly is, I don't think that there would be an earlier mention than this in a Ripper book, but, as I say, it was mentioned in the 1910 press publicity over Anderson's revelations so it was hardly unmentioned at the time.
__________________
SPE

Treat me gently I'm a newbie.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-15-2009, 07:45 AM
Howard Brown Howard Brown is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Greater Metropolitan Eagleville
Posts: 743
Default

While its true that some officials other than Anderson kept official data and that would also constitute a possible violation of police policy, I think Mr. E. has made his point here that Anderson could possibly be guilty of policy violation.

Allow me to ask whether the examples provided and other examples that you have,Mr. E, were appropriated by SRA when Anderson was the veritable Boss or in a subordinate position within the constabulary?

Further...are the documents he appropriated documents which were pertinent to pending issues or were they insignificant documents in the scheme of things?

Thanks for providing what you have so far.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-15-2009, 03:33 PM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Stewart and Rob

Thanks for your replies.

Actually, I think it would have been more appropriate if I'd asked the question on the Swanson thread, so I'll follow up there.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-21-2010, 03:51 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,505
Default

Hi All,

Here's an interesting quote from Raymond Blaine Fosdick, former Commissioner of Accounts, City of New York, and author of European Police Systems [1915] which affords us a glimpse of Robert Anderson.

In briefly discussing the Commissionerships of Warren and Monro he quotes Anderson's The Lighter Side of My Official Life—

"His [Monro's] predecessor had been driven out by the Home Office and he soon yielded to the same pressure . . . Godfrey Lushington's intervention and influence as Under-Secretary (of the Home Office) were generally provocative and his manner irritating . . ."

In a footnote, Fosdick observed—

"This, it must be remembered, is the testimony of a man who did not himself succeed in maintaining very friendly relations with the officials with whom he had to deal, either at the Home Office or at Scotland Yard."

Which rather begs the question of how Robert Anderson contrived to remain Assistant Commissioner for thirteen years.

Fosdick also noted that Anderson's TLSOMOL was "interestingly written, but shows decided bias at certain points."

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-09-2011, 06:26 PM
GregBaron GregBaron is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 826
Default Definitely Ascertained Fact!

Since this phrase sticks in our head I thought we might break it down semantically and see if it suggests anything.

Typically when one says ‘fact’ other verbal adornments are unnecessary. This phrase seems highly qualified. Definite, ok, it’s a fact, there is no question about it, as we like to say in the States, “that’s a fact Jack.” So he wants us to make sure we know it’s a fact, don’t dare question it. Now when you look at ascertain, we have a very specific word.

as•cer•tain
   [as-er-teyn] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to find out definitely; learn with certainty or assurance;determine: to ascertain the facts.
2. Archaic . to make certain, clear, or definitely known.

Origin & History
early 15c., "to inform, to give assurance," from O.Fr. acertener"to assure" (13c.), from a "to" + certain "certain" (see certain).Modern meaning of "to find out for sure by experiment or investigation" is first attested 1794.

I’ve highlighted in red what I think the important part of the definition. Experiment or investigation implies some sort of evidence was obtained does it not?

So let’s return to our favorite suspect Koz. Suppose, for example, his sister contacted police and showed them Annie Chapman’s two cheap rings found in one of Koz's pockets. She says he’s increasingly out of control so they haul him to the nuthouse. We all know the rest including all the holes…

The idea here is that there is a true story upon which the definitely ascertained fact is based.

The other option of this heavy language overkill is that he was trying to hammer it into our heads because it had no basis in reality. Total nonsense but I’ll make sure you believe it with this unassailable phrase.... It’s not merely a fact but a definitely ascertained fact! Ha, try to deny that.

So in case 1, the threat was eliminated and the authorities thought revelation might instigate a pogrom against the Jews so they kept it quiet………….

Case 2, Anderson wasn’t so fond of Jews himself so he blamed one to make himself and his Christian cohorts look better as the judgment of history was no doubt nigh…...........but what of the judgment of his God?

I’m sure there are other interpretations. My purpose here is to see what people think of this choice of words and if they might reveal something directly or more subconsciously….between the lines as they say…

Another possibility - Anderson was fond of purple prose, more a Marcel Proust than an Ernest Hemingway…………!

Greg
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-09-2011, 07:02 PM
ChrisGeorge ChrisGeorge is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,598
Default

Hi Greg

For what it's worth, Paul Begg in an answer to me in March of this year at JtR Forums argued that the "definitely ascertained fact" only referred to Anderson's contention that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was a Polish Jew, and not that it was "a definitely ascertained fact" that the man was the Ripper.

Since you are analyzing wording, I think that is a point worth considering. To me, they are one and the same thing... Anderson said that here was a man who we thought was a Ripper but we were unable to bring him to justice, and that he was a Polish Jew.

But Paul is correct to point out that the phrase in question appears in the wording "In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."

So that ties the relevant phrase to the contention that the man was a Polish Jew and not to the man's candidacy as the killer. Confused?

Best regards

Chris
__________________
Christopher T. George
Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-09-2011, 07:11 PM
GregBaron GregBaron is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 826
Default Who, he, me, thee?

Quote:
So that ties the relevant phrase to the contention that the man was a Polish Jew and not to the man's candidacy as the killer. Confused?
No not confused Chris, as this sticks to the point of semantics.

Quote:
"In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact."
The question here of course is who is the antecedent of "he"?

Greg
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-09-2011, 07:19 PM
Stewart P Evans Stewart P Evans is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,994
Default The 'he'

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregBaron View Post
No not confused Chris, as this sticks to the point of semantics.
The question here of course is who is the antecedent of "he"?
Greg
The 'he' refers to the man Anderson claimed the police 'knew' was Jack the Ripper.
__________________
SPE

Treat me gently I'm a newbie.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-09-2011, 07:28 PM
Chris Chris is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,840
Default

Anderson clearly meant that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the murderer was a (particular) Polish Jew.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-09-2011, 07:34 PM
GregBaron GregBaron is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 826
Default A specific Jew...

Quote:
The 'he' refers to the man Anderson claimed the police 'knew' was Jack the Ripper.
Indeed. Thank you Mr. Evans.

But this contradicts the below.....

Quote:
For what it's worth, Paul Begg in an answer to me in March of this year at JtR Forums argued that the "definitely ascertained fact" only referred to Anderson's contention that it was a definitely ascertained fact that the suspect was a Polish Jew, and not that it was "a definitely ascertained fact" that the man was the Ripper.
So the fact was that the Ripper was a known low-class Polish Jew not that the Ripper was some low-class Polish Jew or that just any low-class Jew would do...

Greg
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.