Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[The Good Michael]

Natalie,

I don't think Anderson was any more antisemitic than other officials of that time. That is also beside the point. I can see an antisemitic person blaming Jews for lower wages, or labor unions, or overcrowding, but that doesn't translate into picking out one Jew as a criminal of the worst kind who is so far removed from his generalizations. Anderson's points are simply reasons, in his mind, why the murderer could not be brought forth as the Ripper. His reasons are, as Rob points out, corroborated. You bring up Fishman, and of course Fishman corroborates them as well by discussing communism, social change, and anarchism among the new Jewish immigrants. So, these are not made up situations, and Anderson, antisemitism or not, was stating things as he saw them. I don't see Kosminski as a component of his arguments with respects to his general understanding of the Jewish community. In fact, the Polish Jew is clearly an anomaly, yet protected because of his Jewishness. The argument is really if Jews would protect their own, and not about Kosminski's candidacy.

Cheers,

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Yes Mike, the argument is about that point and it is brilliantly answered by Leopold Jacob Greenberg [pen name MENTOR] in a March 4 1910 article he wrote as editor of the Jewish Chronicle .
I took the trouble to transcribe a couple of sections of the article which you will find on a new thread under Anderson in the Police section entitled "Mentor"s response to Anderson".Clearly what Anderson said was deeply offensive and very upsetting, particularly about Jews sheltering a dangerous murderer.Anyway read it for yourself.Its also here,in the Press section of the Casebook, under "Jewish Chronicle March 1910".

I would disagree with you about your analysis of Professor Fishman.He is Jewish and a liberal but I would never describe him as a communist.Many Victorian men and women such as Labouchere-- -even Queen Victoria herself, were strongly anti -racist and the Queen is on record as finding some of her own families attitudes quite racist when they objected to her taking her Indian teacher with her on a family holiday to Nice.She said she found their objections racist and that she was offended by their views.

[Stewart P Evans]

Peculiar

In an effort to gain some idea of Anderson's character as viewed by his contemporaries a few quotes might be useful.

"Sir Robert, as our readers are aware, entertains what are sometimes called peculiar notions about crime and criminals, and the methods by which they should be treated by the State. His views do not exactly accord with those of some of our best known criminal judges, and Home Secretaries have been known to disregard his advice; those of his critics who believe in making the punishment always fit the crime object that some of his proposals are weak, while on the other hand he is a red rag to the Secretary of the Humanitarian League ... he is now grey and elderly." - The Yorkshire Weekly Post, Saturday March 7, 1903.

[The Good Michael]

Natalie,

Never said Fishman was a communist. I said that he brings up communism, anarchism and social/labor changes in his book attributed to Jewish immigrants, and that that shows that the belief that there was trouble to be had from these new immigrants was not unfounded. For the police and the government, any social change spells trouble.

Cheers,

Mike

[Howard Brown]

In perusing various threads here and elsewhere regarding the allegation of an anti-Semitic bias on the part of Anderson, allow me just add these random thoughts:

Anderson doesn't smack of being an anti-Semite,period. He was an "elitist" who had the same general opinion of the Have Nots of all entities that other well off individuals or individuals who had become familiar with the "whole" of an entity, in this case the Jews of The East End, had. He was able to distinguish an assimilated successful Jew like Montagu ( as an example) from a rank and file socialist Jew, whether he said so in print or not. Had he not been cognizant of the different social statuses of Jews and used that label" low class" then we might have an argument for his probable anti-Jewish position. I don't think we do for the reason given before.

Its not, or shouldn't be, that disturbing to anyone that Anderson used the label "low class Jews", since he makes a distinction between elements of Jewry in London.

Anderson, of course, explained his position on which "type of Jew" he was referring to in a subsequent piece. He didn't deviate from his original premise, rather only clarified which element he referred to without a lot of the concomitant genuflection and bowing and scraping which people engage in when braced on a question which seemingly blankets an entire group....

I think his provincialism ( not racism, which is a blanket assessment of the "whole " of an entity or group...such as "those faggots",which includes every homosexual and does not designate a certain element within that entity) is not unusual. We still delineate individuals from groups even today...and there's no need to explain how we do that.

If we look at Anderson's Declaration, its essential to understand that he did clarify what he meant. Whether one believes it or not depends on who you are,I suppose.

This same sort of assumed insensitivity was also found within the ranks of assimilated Jewry towards the recently arrived Jews. I have found newspaper articles which provide the reader with a clear cut message from assimilated,established Jews that presents an even more disparaging portrayal of the newly arrived Jews from Jews. Yet, that isn't considered anti-Semitic at all.

One might question whether Mentor had the status of assimilated Jews in mind when he counterpointed Anderson. Could Mentor have wanted a clarification from Anderson to coerce him to indicate which Jews he meant? Probably not,I guess.... But at least it did provide that clarification.

Fortunately,in one sense, the Anderson Blackwood's article appeared nearly 25 years after the WM. Had it appeared on the front page of a contemporaneous newspaper, it probably would have caused embarassment for all Jews, since a sizeable number of persons in circa 1888 would probably "read" what Anderson said in 1910 in the way that some of us still do.

Larkin's blanket assessment of the Portugese people-nation-race can be seen as a 'racist' comment. He didn't attempt to delineate Peninsular War peasants from East End sailors and ironically, as a side note, Anderson was the one who dismissed him as a waste of time.

If I could make one suggestion on how we as a body examine Anderson's remarks, it would be that we separate the reference to "low class Jews" when examining the whole of what he is saying. It has served to distract the reader and modern Ripperologist from focusing on his claim in the first place for far too long. That he had or has been percieved as having an ethnic bias diminishes the (more important) gist of his recollections...recollections that his peers and contemporaries dismissed for a variety of reasons... and one that only Swanson apparently agreed with.

[Natalie Severn]

Howard,
I can only state that this Jewish editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Mr Greenberg [signing himself Mentor],appears deeply offended that the Jewish community have been "singled out" if not "targeted" by Anderson in these articles in Blackwoods Magazine ,as being the sort of folk who would act in such a dangerously anti social manner as to shield this murderer from justice ,thereby allowing him to continue killing and mutilating on the East End streets. This is clearly what has given deepest offence and it comes from a contemporary middle class Jew.
I believe it is important in that it reveals a reckless side to Anderson"s character as correctly noted by the City Police Chief Henry Smith as such a statement,were it to reach a wider public,could have caused a dangerous backlash agains the Jewish Community.If someone said such a thing today they would be in serious trouble with the law themselves.

Moreover,we know that Anderson"s memoirs were not generally well received.Winston Churchill,then Home Secretary determined whether Anderson should forfeit his pension because of disclosures of confidential information.He noted the articles did Anderson little credit and added that they seemed to have been written" in a spirit of gross boastfulness--in the style of "How Bill Adams Won the Battle of Waterloo."
This is quite apart from the embarrassment caused when he admitted writing several Parnellism and Crime Articles---and then dumping the blame on Monro.
Cheers

[Mitch Rowe]

No doubt about it.

Unfortunately this idea does not withstand scrutiny. There is no way that the case was solved in 1888/9, or at any time after. It's all very well to argue secrecy as regards press and public but the official files were totally confidential (until the 1970s) and they clearly show that the senior police officers and the Home Office had no idea who Jack the Ripper was then, nor at any time since.

It dont make any sense that Police knew. I mean why would they lie to Abberline and keep him in the dark? Theres no way Abberline knew. He tells the reporter he is writing to MacNaghten about Chapman and sure enough the reporter sees the evidence of that on Abberlines desk. Then Abberline goes on to defend himself by saying there is no way he could not know that the Ripper had been found. Not only that. Then Abberline shows this reporter a document. Described as a recent document. Wich proves to the reporter beyond all doubt that Police were still looking for the Ripper.

Im willing to bet Abberline had alot of friends he could count on to tell him if a major break happens in the Ripper case. Not only Police but others involved with police that would have witnessed something.

For the big guys to know who the Ripper was. The little guys have to find him. Im sure Abberline was very close friends with alot of little guys.

[Stephen Thomas]

It's all very well to argue secrecy as regards press and public but the official files were totally confidential (until the 1970s) and they clearly show that the senior police officers and the Home Office had no idea who Jack the Ripper was then, nor at any time since.

Hi Stewart

As I've said before, I bow to nobody in respecting your knowledge about this case (I think I once called you the best Ripperologist bar none and I imagine few would disagree) but might it have been that there was no paper chain here, or if there was that the papers were not filed, or that they were filed but later removed? Could these options not be a possibility?

[Howard Brown]

Dear Nats:

Perhaps if I was Jewish in 1910...I might feel a little upset about what Anderson was saying in Blackwood's about the "low class" comment. Again, the real issue we ought to be focusing on is that the Ripper was identified according to Anderson. Smith was, according to reports, a professional rival of Anderson at some point and this "rivalry" may have compelled Smith to engage in his attempt at defusing what Anderson said to some degree.

However I think that the reaction by other people 25 years after the fact was or is a case of Anderson not clarifying what he originally meant to say and the response a little overboards. That Anderson claims the Ripper was apprehended seems to run a sure second to the emphasis that Anderson placed on the ethnic makeup or class distinction of the actual culprit.




http://docs.newsbank.com/s/HistArchi...20FECAAFCBE6ED

In Chapter Thirty of The Ultimate Sourcebook by Keith Skinner, you'll find Philadelphia journalist Richard H. Davis's interview with Inspector Henry Moore which appeared in the PMG in 1889 around the time of the Pinchin Street Torso crime.

Davis also made a report of his visit to Scotland Yard's Black Museum which appeared in the Omaha Daily World Herald on Page 2, January 13,1890, 2 months and 9 days after the Moore Interview in the PMG article.

I won't reproduce all of the article...you can look it up yourself..but the section that I will transcribe is fairly important in light of all the huzzah over Anderson being some sort of anti-Semite.

Anderson's comment on the "low class Jew" is obscuring the more important part of his Blackwood's article,in my view. I have found several URL's from Jews on Jews which make Anderson's comments look tame. These were met with no such outcry as Anderson's were.

Anyway, here goes:

"The detective struck a match so that we could see our way down to a narrow passage and a crooked flight of steps. The steps led into a small whitewashed cellar with a wooden floor and a skylight set in one corner of the ceiling. Outside, the high walls around the brick court known as Scotland yard shut out all but a faint,foggy light. the detective lit a gas jet and said with a wave of the hand: "This is what we call the Black museum. These are the relics of all the principal crimes that have made any talk in London for over fifty years."

The detective picked up a long thin bottle, tightly corked and half filled with a dark,oily liquid. "This is vitriol", my guide said, shaking the bottle. " A Polish Jew grew jealous of a woman and threw her down and poured part of this stuff down her throat. A horrible death,sir, but he hung for it. Most of the money of all the Jews in Whitechapel went to pay for his defense. They petitioned the Queen and they retained the best barristers in London,but they could not save. And because they couldn't save him they now do all in their power to mislead the Whitechapel Police in their search for Jack The Ripper. This is Lipski's coat. You can see where the vitriol has burnt it. It was one of the strongest evidences for the prosecution."-end

As you can see in the underlined passage from this article.... 24 years before Anderson would utter something with far less opprobrium...others may have felt as he did himself.

This was written by a man describing a policeman conducting a tour of the Black Museum during the time of the murders...

I am not sure if this "tour" was conducted in 1889,as the date of the article infers...but its well before Anderson's famous faux pas on the subject.

[Natalie Severn]

How,
We could go on like this indefinitely but lets agree to differ.
In this case I prefer to accept the words of the gentleman Jew himself,Leopold Jacob Greenberg ,Editor of the Jewish Chronicle,who,in 1910 , unequivocally expressed his outrage at Robert Anderson"s articles telling readers of Blackwoods Magazine that Jews had been responsible for sheltering Jack the Ripper,the author of a particularly horrific series of murders, from Gentile Justice.
He was supported in his reaction by the City Commissioner of Police,Henry Smith,who also deplored Anderson"s remarks stating they were both reckless and suggesting Anderson"s assertion that it was a"definitely ascertained fact" that he knew the identity of Jack the Ripper and where he had lived was untrue and utter nonsense-moreover that the Ripper had them all beat ,every policeman in London ,and in the twenty years since the murders happened, nobody was any wiser about who he was or where he had lived.He also suggests that the Jewish Community were decent law abiding citizens---a lot better behaved as far as the law was concerned than some of the Gentile Community of the East End.
In addition to Henry Smith"s comments ,also made in 1910, there was Abberline who agreed that all talk of lunatics in asylums and drowned doctors was a lot of rubbish.[He ofcourse thought Chapman was the ripper at one point in 1903].
And there were the rest of the senior police ,equally nonplussed.
By the way, with regards to all this talk about "unco-operative" local Jews,I think it was actually Swanson who wrote in one of his reports following the house to house searches in a mostly Jewish area of Whitechapel,that all residents had been most cooperative.It was either him or one of his men who said that which contradicts this chap in the Black Museum you refer to.
With Best Wishes Howard,
Norma

[Chris]

In Chapter Thirty of The Ultimate Sourcebook by Keith Skinner ...

I could have sworn someone else had a hand in that book too ...

Most of the money of all the Jews in Whitechapel went to pay for his defense. They petitioned the Queen and they retained the best barristers in London,but they could not save. And because they couldn't save him they now do all in their power to mislead the Whitechapel Police in their search for Jack The Ripper. This is Lipski's coat. You can see where the vitriol has burnt it. It was one of the strongest evidences for the prosecution.

If accurate, that's certainly any interesting example of anti-semitism in the Metropolitan C.I.D. a year or so after the period of the murders.

[Howard Brown]

Nats:

I think you'll remember when you and I argued together on the same side contra Mr. Begg on whether SRA was a racist and/or an elitist and I still think he was an elitist rather than an anti-Semite...but for the sake of not arguing with your,dear friend, whatever you care to believe is fine with me and of course, I respect that. I think its more productive if we all steered clear of the "low class" comment and stick to the issue of whether Anderson had a basis for his declaration or whether he simply talking out of his toches. But maybe thats just me.

Later,sweet potater

[Natalie Severn]

Ok-you are a real "ladies man" How!

Chris,good point.

[rjpalmer]

Mark Furman was a racist, ergo O.J. Simpson was innocent. What a simple science 'Ripperology' is...

Unfortunately, historians can't afford to think like jail house lawyers.

[Howard Brown]

And because they couldn't save him they now do all in their power to mislead the Whitechapel Police in their search for Jack The Ripper.

If accurate, that's certainly any interesting example of anti-semitism in the Metropolitan C.I.D. a year or so after the period of the murders.

What it might also signify is that Anderson did clarify his statement to avoid being lumped in with those who made sweeping generalizations such as the one recorded by Davis.