Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

    I am posting the New York Times article from March 20, 1910 that comments on Anderson's Blackwoods assertions. I am only including the text from the paragraphs related to the Ripper, as the rest of the article largely discusses "the question of the disposal of the criminal insane" in a broad sense.

    New York Times, March 20, 1910


    The Truth at Last About Jack the Ripper

    London Police Had Him in their Net
    But Couldn't Convict Him— Problems
    of the Criminal Insane


    Sir Robert Anderson, for more than thirty years Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department of the British Government, and head of the Detective Bureau at Scotland Yard, has at length raised the veil of mystery which for nearly two decades has enveloped the identity of the perpetrator of those atrocious crimes known as the Whitechapel murders.

    Sir Robert's revelations, in an article over his signature in one of the leading London reviews for the current month, and supplemented by a letter from him printed in the London Times, effectually disposes of the popular stories ascribing the outrages to a peer, now dead, who despite his great wealth had rendered himself an outcast by his vices and eccentricities, or to a man, untitled, but of birth and breeding, who after manifesting unmistakable signs of mental disorder had suddenly vanished from his accustomed haunts in London, eventually to die in a madhouse.

    Sir Robert establishes the fact that the infamous "Jack the Ripper," as the unknown slayer had been dubbed by the public, and at whose hands no less than fourteen women of the unfortunate class successively lost their lives within a circumscribed area of the East End of London, was an alien of the lower, though educated class, hailing from Poland, and a maniac of the most virulent and homicidal type—of a type recorded, by reason of its rarity, in medical treatises, but one with which the world at large is not familiar.

    Sir Robert describes the house to house search for the man in the district in which all the murders were committed: how the police investigated the case of every man within that area whose circumstances were such that he could go and come, and get rid of his bloodstains in secret: how by these means the suspect was caught, and how, although the authorities were able to prove beyond a doubt his identity, they were, nevertheless, unable to secure legal evidence sufficient for his conviction.

    But the most important point of all made by Sir Robert is the fact that once the Criminal Investigation Department was sure that it had in its hands the real perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders, it procured from the Secretary of State for the Home Department a warent committing the man for detention "during the King's pleasure" to the great asylum at Broadmoor five or six years ago".

    Consigned to Broadmoor.

    "Jack the Ripper" was consigned to Broadmoor by virtue of a warrent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, acting in the name of the sovereign, and not by means of any judicial process".

    The power of committal is a prerogative of the crown. But the perpetration of any abuse of these royal 'lettres de cachet" (such as was in vogue in the days of the Court of Versailles when the Kings of France were able to consign to lifelong captivity in the Bastille nobles guilty of no other offense than that of having spoken slightingly of the monarch's fair favorite of the hour) is guarded against by the fact that it is the Secretary of State who signs the warrant of committal, and that he is responsible in his, as for all his other official acts, to Parliament.

    If I call attention here to the manner in which the English Government dealt with the case of Jack the Ripper, it is because the question of the disposal of the criminal insane is one of the most absorbing problems of the hour...
    Attached Files

  • #2
    What is the reference to the fact that Anderson's revelations were "supplemented by a letter from him printed in the London Times"?

    RH

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Rob,

      Some years ago Martin Fido and Nick Warren remarked on this piece and attempted to trace the letter. As far as I know, the Times edition containing the letter remains unknown (if indeed, Anderson did have a published letter in the Times concerning the identification).

      Comment


      • #4
        Wait a minute? The King's pleasure? The suspect was committed five or six years before 1910? When did the identification take place?

        Comment


        • #5
          Well, it would have been 1903-04 at the King's Pleasure. The entire report by "Veteran Diplomat" is considered a confusion of the earlier Cutbush case.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
            Well, it would have been 1903-04 at the King's Pleasure.
            Yes I understand that. My point is that if we consider Swanson to be an accurate reflection of Anderson's reasoning the identification and incarceration would have taken place at her majesty's pleasure, i.e. before 1901.

            Comment


            • #7
              It seems to me clear that this article is (as Scott says) a confusion of what Anderson wrote in Blackwood's in March 1910, and Cutbush who was named as a suspect by the Sun newspaper in February 1894.

              I am still confused at where the article comes up with the statement about consigning the Ripper to Broadmoor "five or six years ago". Of course Cutbush was committed to Broadmoor much earlier, but he did die in 1903... maybe this is the source of the "five or six years ago" remark? Another confusion?

              I still for the life of me can't figure out what this "letter from [Anderson] printed in the London Times" is a reference to...! I think Stewart documented most of Anderson's public statements on the Ripper in the older Anderson thread, but I cant see any letters by Anderson (to any newspaper). I guess it is probably a reference to the Globe interview with Anderson on March 7, 1910.

              Seems like a very bungled article by the "veteran diplomat"...

              Comment


              • #8
                In an interesting article in the current Ripperologist (issue 109, December 2009), Simon Wood identifies the author of this New York Times article as Frederick Cunliffe-Owen [1855-1926], who he says was running an intelligence agency in New York on behalf of the British Home Office. Unfortunately Wood doesn't reveal the source of any of this information.

                Inexplicably, he apparently assumes that most of the article was written by Anderson - though there seems to be nothing to indicate that anything beyond the first section is attributable to him. On the information found by Wood, much of the content of the article appears to lie in the realm of fantasy. This makes it easier to understand how the article could report Anderson's opinions so inaccurately, but doesn't of itself tell us anything about those opinions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Neverthless , behind this garbled/mythical offshoot is a genuine and extraordinary suspect who may well have been Jack the Ripper: Aaron Kosminski.

                  I think this is yet another expression of the tension Anderson felt between his sincere belief about the Polish Jew suspect [it was Kosminski!] and and the need to discreetly conceal when exactly he had been discovered [after he was incarcerated, and after he had been an inactive murderer for two years.] Here we have bits and pieces of the histroical truth, as in there really was a house-to-house search, and there was a major Polish Jew suspect which came to Anderson's attention.

                  Also, the police could not arrest a man already institutionalised, which is the acutely frustrating bottom line about Kosminski.

                  Of course the article builds on Anderson's claim that after the search this suspect came to their attention -- which is chronologically true -- with the gap of two years eliminated in favour of a much more satisfying 'shilling shocker' narrative.

                  This article is an unintended offshoot of the original strategy by Anderson and Macnaghten, in 1894, to bury when exactly Druitt and Kosminki came to police attention [Anderson, I believe, later forgot all this political manouvering about a mystery of limited interest to himself, but Macnaghten, the original 'Ripperologist', did not].

                  This article renders Kosminski as completely unrecoverable as Druitt, who is impenetrably cocooned in the 'Drowned Doctor' mythos. They also both tell much better stories which make Scotland Yard look super-efficient.

                  I also find it interesting that in 1895 Anderson and Swanson were beginning to brief the press about the 'locked-up lunatic'. But Swanson, already, thinks he is dead?

                  Of course, Kosminski did not die until 1919. Anderson never made this claim, and Macnaghten, between 1894 and 1898 [whenever the 'Aberconway' version was written] seems to know that the suspect is very much alive in the asylum.

                  This mostly fictional article does not claim the suspect is dead either.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I see there is an ongoing discussion of Simon Wood's article at jtrforums.com.

                    I must say that I'm baffled why anyone should think that Anderson wrote the description of the visit to Broadmoor, or why anyone should think that the author of the article implied that it was anything to do with Anderson.

                    The visit is described in a first-person narrative without any quotation marks or any reference to Anderson. The natural interpretation would be that it was the author of the article who was claiming to have visited Broadmoor.

                    And there is absolutely no suggestion that the author of the article based his account of Anderson's beliefs on any kind of personal interview. The claim is that the account was based on "an article over his signature in one of the leading London reviews for the current month, and supplemented by a letter from him printed in the London Times".

                    If this had been an "exclusive", based on unpublished revelations received directly from Anderson, it would certainly have been mentioned. Clearly it was nothing of the kind - only a garbled account of what had been published under Anderson's name elsewhere, combined with the author's own even more unreliable reminiscences.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chris View Post
                      I must say that I'm baffled why anyone should think that Anderson wrote the description of the visit to Broadmoor...

                      The visit is described in a first-person narrative without any quotation marks or any reference to Anderson. The natural interpretation would be that it was the author of the article who was claiming to have visited Broadmoor.
                      Quite correct Chris. Clearly about 95% of the posters on this site don't read very carefully, including me. There is absolutely no evidence that Sir Robert Anderson had any direct involvement in the March 20th NY Times article.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I see Simon Wood has responded to my post over at jtrforums.com. I'm not sure why, as he has a Casebook account, and I don't have one on jtrforums.com.

                        Anyway, to reply here:

                        (1) As I have said, the article is quite clear that its account of Anderson's views is based on "an article over his signature in one of the leading London reviews for the current month, and supplemented by a letter from him printed in the London Times". There is no hint that the author has interviewed Anderson or had any personal communication with him.

                        I can't accept the argument that, despite this, the article must be based on an interview with Anderson simply because there is a large picture of Anderson at the top of it.

                        (2) As I have said, the story of the visit to Broadmoor is given in the first person, without any quotation marks and without any reference to Anderson. The natural interpretation is that it's the author of the article who is supposed to have visited Broadmoor.

                        But Simon Wood says that can't be the case, because the article was written by Frederick Cunliffe-Owen, who would have been too young to visit Broadmoor before Meyer's death. Therefore, apparently, the story must have come from Anderson.

                        The problem with this is that - as Simon Wood deserves credit for having demonstrated - the story of the visit to Broadmoor is in any case a fantastic invention. Anderson could no more have seen "Boy Jones" or Mrs Brough at Broadmoor than could Cunliffe-Owen. But of course Cunliffe-Owen could very well have fabricated the whole thing under the cloak of anonymity.

                        That's if Cunliffe-Owen was the author of the article, which is impossible for the rest of us to judge unless we're told what evidence the identification is based on. Not that I've any particular reason to think the identification is incorrect, but I can't really understand why the evidence for it couldn't have been cited in the article.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Chris View Post
                          Not that I've any particular reason to think the identification is incorrect, but I can't really understand why the evidence for it couldn't have been cited in the article.
                          Well, apparently the response to the latest request for information on this is that if we don't "accept" what Simon Wood has written, we are to do our own research and "get Googling".

                          Oh dear.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I agree Chris.

                            What I was arguing is that behind this hodge-podge of bits and pieces is Anderson's [sincerely believed] chief suspect -- completely unrecoverable here.

                            This article is a mythical offshoot; an offshoot because it is not written, or directly contributed to, by Anderson himself.

                            However, in my opinion, Anderson and Swanson [and Macnaghten] between 1891 and 1894 began to dramatically telescope when the Ripper murders ended [Kelly not Coles] and when the Polish Jew suspect first came to their attention [1889, or 1888 -- NOT 1891, or even later].

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Simon Wood kindly sent me details of the evidence for the identification of "A Veteran Diplomat" as Frederick Cunliffe-Owen.

                              This is page 496 of Who's Who in America, 1913 (available through Google Books), which identifies "Veteran Diplomat" as one of Cunliffe-Owen's noms de plume:
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	WhosWhoInAmerica1913Page496.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	24.2 KB
ID:	658191

                              (In addition, Naomi W. Cohen, in "The Abrogation of the Russo-American Treaty of 1832", Jewish Social Studies, vol. 25, number 1 (1963), pp. 24, 25 - available online at http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/F-9A.PDF - discussing another article by a "Veteran Diplomat" in the New York Times, identifies the author as "Cunliffe Owen".)

                              As further confirmation of the accuracy of the "Who's Who" account, Simon provided an article from the Galveston Daily News, 26 December 1896, in which an article headed "Ex Attache describes the gorgeous ceremonial customary at courts of royalty" is signed "F. Cunliffe Owen".

                              This seems to establish the identification straightforwardly enough.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X