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

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

Sir Robt.Anderson...Cassell's Saturda... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Police Officials » Anderson, Sir Robert » Sir Robt.Anderson...Cassell's Saturday Journal 1892 Interview « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard

Post Number: 43
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 10:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

In the recent Ripper Notes,July 2004 magazine, Dan Norder included a very valuable piece on Sir Bob from 1892, an interview in Cassell's Saturday Journal, entitled, Representative Men At Home: Dr. Anderson at New Scotland Yard.

Dan adds a footnote in the intro to this piece that is worth contemplating for all.

"If Kosminski had been positively identified as the Ripper in 1891,why then is Anderson making a reference that the killer should be believed to be insane based upon crime scene photos and not an identification more than a year later ?"-end of Dan's post.

Taking into account that Anderson was the chief proponent of Kosminski being the Ripper due to the Seaside Home identification a year earlier in 1891, and as a result, the reason more than a few lean toward Kosminski being the Ripper,do any of you wonder why Sir Bob forgot to mention this in the Cassell's interview?

Any ideas???














(Message edited by howard on August 12, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

D. Radka
Unregistered guest
Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"...do any of you wonder why Sir Bob forgot to mention this in the Cassell's interview?"

>>How about: "Because he wanted to keep the fundamental circumstances concerning the identification a secret"? Isn't this Anderson's chief preoccupation across the boards from Day 1 concerning the identification? After all, he never goes into detail about it anywhere else in his writings, despite that he alludes to it. This is really a simple dross matter as I see it, it reveals nothing about Anderson or his motivations, and adds nothing to the case. Why question it?

Same thing concerning the Cassell's article. All that happens in that interview is Anderson diverts the interviewer's attention by taking him on a tour of some crime exhibits he has available. Then when he gets the guy bored enough, he gets rid of him and goes back to reading his daily case reports. Not valuable, and not worth reading as far as I can see.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg

Post Number: 780
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 12:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hi David, How,

I guess it is because anderson was not certain who the ripper was at this point (thats my reading of it)

If Anderson knew and was lying all along thats seems odd to me because after all catching JTR would do nothing for his reputation far better to just ignore that fact he knew,
cheers
Jennifer


"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder

Post Number: 240
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 2:11 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David wrote:

"Not valuable, and not worth reading as far as I can see."

Because reading new information in an interview of a major police official just after the murders is a complete waste of time...




Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard

Post Number: 47
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 1:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Its not a "dross" matter...This is a man who 18 years later was cocksure about who the Ripper was. Yet, in this interview 3 years later,is unusually silent about the positive identification of Kosminski a year earlier. My contention,as you may well have guessed,is that Anderson did not know who the Ripper was,based on Lawende/Levy/Joe Blow's eyewitness statement in 1891, at the Seaside Home.
One of the problems in the WM is the attachment of reliability to the accounts of police officials. As a " fair to middlin'" example of this, we have the 5 different variations of the Goulston Street Graffiti......enough said.
I recognize that Anderson and his comments on the Case, are seminal to your theory, the A?R theory...
By simply waving a hand at the 1892 article, does not cut it. Its not that easily dismissed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard

Post Number: 48
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 9:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"This is really a simple dross matter as I see it, it reveals nothing about Anderson or his motivations, and adds nothing to the case. Why question it?"---poster above.

We question it because Anderson himself mentions the Whitechapel Murders IN the interview.
We question it because Anderson himself discusses the type of man we should be looking for...again,IN the interview.
One small problem though...Sir Bob doesn't state what he already apparently knew to the satisfaction of the reading public whom,18 years later he would inform so casually,in his Blackwood article and memoirs.....that he knew who the Ripper was.

Maybe Anderson was on a short leash and maybe he wasn't. Its hard to imagine why any police official or authority figure would withhold what Anderson, in a blase fashion to boot,states 18 years later...



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AIP
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 3:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

So, exactly when did Anderson first 'know' who the Ripper was?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

D. Radka
Unregistered guest
Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 3:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

>>The Cassell’s article has attracted little interest from Ripperologists over the century that it has existed for good reason: It offers no new information and nothing of value with respect to Anderson or his role in the case. There is certainly no reason to expect that Anderson would make mention to the journalist about matters sensitive to him at the time, he does not, and there is nothing pertinent about that. Publishing the article may not have necessarily been a bad idea in itself, as any quotations from Anderson hypothetically might have some de minimus interest to case aficionados, but thereupon following up by using his li’l buddy Mr. Brown on this web site as a phony third-party “plant” to foster the spurious contention that the article contains something of interest speaks volumes to me of the ethical standards observed at ‘Ripper Notes.’ When Mr. Brown posts on this web site…

“Dan adds a footnote in the intro to this piece that is worth contemplating for all”

…it seems to me that we are being made the targets of a weaseling, posturing, surreptitious and deceptive marketing campaign, not participating in scholarship. Articles and books concerning Anderson worthy of serious consideration either contain real information about his work or perspectives on the case, or if they don’t are published in such a way or at such a time as to dynamically generate a determinant question as to why they don’t. To me, the Cassell’s article qualifies on neither count.

Mr. Brown quotes Mr. Norder: "If Kosminski had been positively identified as the Ripper in 1891,why then is Anderson making a reference that the killer should be believed to be insane based upon crime scene photos and not an identification more than a year later?"

>>So what? Anderson thought Kosminski was the Ripper, and also, based on crime scene photos, that the murderer must be insane. Like thousands of other people, he took a look at the Kelly photos and thought anybody who’d do that must be insane. He didn’t want to talk about the identification because he had his reasons for keeping details of it secret and thus didn’t want to open the matter up to a live interactive interviewer relatively soon after it took place, a situation in which details might be inadvertently revealed, and this was probably in view of confidential arrangements he’d made either with the witness or the suspect’s family, or both. If on the other hand Anderson is going to say to the interviewer anything like that there is “no doubt whatever” concerning the “definitely ascertained fact” of the murderer’s identity, he’s going to be asked to explain. He is not being “unusually silent about the positive identification of Kosminski a year earlier” as Mr. Brown speciously alleges, there’s nothing unusual about his behavior. These dross simple background considerations known throughout the field reduce the value of Mr. Norder’s question above to zero. The article generates no serious scholarly question of which I am aware. Mr. Norder gives one the impression of a ruthless Rupert Murdock-style tabloid publisher who, having no worthy thesis to write about, trumps up some ersatz lurid headline and splashes it across page one, sparing no black ink and appealing solely to the knee-jerk reactions of the crowd.

Regarding Mr. Brown’s further remark—

“One of the problems in the WM is the attachment of reliability to the accounts of police officials. As a " fair to middlin'" example of this, we have the 5 different variations of the Goulston Street Graffiti......enough said.”

>>What does the Wentworth graffitus have to do with Robert Anderson? How does the reliability of one reflect on the reliability of the other? Again, a specious blandishment, in which unrelated elements are brought together in an illogical way.

And his further gargling—

“We question it because Anderson himself mentions the Whitechapel Murders IN the interview.”

>>So what? If you interview Robert Anderson for Cassell’s at that time, you expect to hear something about the Whitechapel murders, because they are a part of Anderson’s job. If you interview George Steinbrenner, you expect to hear something about the New York Yankees, don’t you?

And his further oral rinsing—

”We question it because Anderson himself discusses the type of man we should be looking for...again,IN the interview.”

>>Ha Ha! That’s like saying that if you and I have a discussion about how I recently had to put a new oil pump on my car, therefore if I DON’T also tell you in the same conversation that I also once before had to put a muffler on it SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN DENMARK. The obvious truth of the matter, as Mr. Brown conceives of it, is that whenever I tell you about my car, I am obligated to tell you EVERYTHING about it. Ha Ha!

And his expectoration—

“One small problem though...Sir Bob doesn't state what he already apparently knew to the satisfaction of the reading public whom,18 years later he would inform so casually,in his Blackwood article and memoirs.....that he knew who the Ripper was.”

>>Ha Ha! Let’s get straight what Mr. Brown is saying here, because it is such a pretentious Disneyland commercialization of the case evidence as to stun the mind. He implies that now is the same as 18 years from now. If Anderson wishes to satisfy his reading public 18 years from now on a certain issue, then by George he also would wish to satisfy them likewise today. The measure of what he would do today is what he does 18 years from now. And if he doesn’t do the same both times, then SOMETHING IS ROTTEN IN DENMARK TODAY. How does Anderson know what he’s going to do 18 years from now? Does anyone reading this know what he or she is going to do in 2022? Thus there is no such thing as “one small problem” in this as Mr. Brown says—there is NOTHING in it whatever. The whole matter is fantasyland hyperbole, designed to cue readers that there is an issue when there is none. The evidence he cites generates no determinant question, but merely puffs out a swirling cloud of colorful arbitrariness designed to catch the eye of the unwary. I never cease to be amazed what some people will do for money.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder

Post Number: 258
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 3:06 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David,


1) It's not that this article was well known but ignored as meaningless for a century, as you say. It hadn't been seen in a century. People can't ignore something as meaningless if they don't even know it exists. Since its publication, a number of well-known researchers have called it a significant find. Of course I've heard something like four different interpretations of what it means, but then, as the ending comments in my introduction to the piece indicates, that's not at all surprising.

2) To make my point about what I think it means clear: If Anderson a year before had been at a witness identification at which the sole witness to have clearly seen the killer actually had unhesitatingly identified him but then only refused to testify after finding out he was a Jew (as Anderson claims 20 years later), I find the choice of phrasing in this article odd. If it really did happen, I don't expect him to just up and admit the whole thing to the interviewer, but I don't expect the phrase "It's impossible to believe they were the acts of a sane man" to show up when he's showing off crime scene photos either. If he really thought he knew who it was, and that the person was insane, I think he'd be saying something more along the lines of: "Look, [pointing at photos] it's obviously the work of an insane man." That in no way gives up any secrets. The "impossible to believe" phrase sounds more like someone trying to convince himself than someone who actually knew. From my experience, which may or may not mean anything in this case, someone certain of something of this magnitude doesn't typically use the word "believe" in that way. Heck, lots of people here use a lot stronger language of certainty to try to support things they have no real evidence to believe but their gut feelings. An actual honest to goodness identification of the killer should have left a bigger impression on his tone (and, for that matter, the other police on the case who clearly said after this supposed identification that the killer had not been identified). Granted, that's a subjective interpretation, but then that's exactly how I presented it.

3) Far from being "worthless," there are also a lot of other interesting and potentially important bits in the piece. Anderson mentions other articles he has written -- as far as I know, nobody has seen those yet, so maybe someone could use this info to look for them. The reference to the police in England being hampered by freedom-loving citizens as compared to police on the continent who have more power is directly echoed in his autobiography decades later. That might show where he got that idea in the first place, and might even show that he had this article handy to use as a reference while he was working on his autobiography. There are also interesting bits about his background and a slice of life at Scotland Yard at the time. There's a lot of noteworthy information in this article.

4) I don't at all follow how you think the term "deceptive marketing" (and similar claims above) applies. You (and everyone else) subscribed to a 30 page publication and ended up with a 100 page one. The content is just the same as it had been previously, except for there being more of it. If you honestly think there's something bad about the publication or my actions I will happily cancel your subscription and refund you a percentage of the whole based upon how many issues would have had left.


Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard

Post Number: 51
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 9:52 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Avoiding any retaliatory 'shots" at the Man Who Solved The Case...I offer this...Yawn.

So...for anyone else interested in discussing why The Original Moustache Pete in Ripper studies mentions what kind of person we should be looking for 1 year AFTER declaring that he KNEW who he was 22 years later in two articles,a year EARLIER than the Cassells' interview took place, lets talk...

I promised Stephen I would avoid Radka on the boards and I will.

Moving right along....Dan, why waste time arguing against a blatant attempt by one theorist to squash any discussion about Sir Bob and how Sir Bob is the sine qua non of that particular theory? Why question anything?

Its fun being civilized....for a change.




(Message edited by howard on August 26, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder

Post Number: 261
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 10:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I'm not really arguing with David. Just using his post to clarify a couple issues for the benefit of anyone wandering by who isn't already familiar with David and his tactics. Along those lines, I suppose I should also add that David's theory relies quite heavily on the belief that an identification really happened.


Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard

Post Number: 53
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 10:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

AIP states:
"So, exactly when did Anderson first 'know' who the Ripper was?--

Thats a very important question,AIP...We don't know if he did....and with articles like the Cassell's interview, to some people, it only increases doubt as to whether he did.

Anderson was under no obligation to mention anything regarding the WM. Since he did and not just once, its worth looking into what else Anderson did, or may have written, subsequent to the 1891 Seaside Home interrogation,as Dan stated above.

Taking a definitive stand on the veracity of numerous aspects of the WM can lead to surprising discoveries...

For instance,AIP, it appears some folks were not aware of the actual size of the graffiti found at the Wentworth Homes on Goulston Street. The graffiti,if Inspector Halse, who objected to their removal,as you may know,was correct,had capital letters only 3/4 of an inch high and the lower case letters were in relative proportion to the capitals. An area most likely 7 x 5 1/2 inches square !!!! Before I get whomped, remember I said "most likely" !!

back to Anderson...maybe someone here can find other articles Anderson may have written in British tabloids one day. It wouldn't hurt to look....

(Message edited by howard on August 28, 2004)

(Message edited by howard on August 28, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AIP
Unregistered guest
Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 2:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Howard,

Thank you, and I agree, my question was a pointed one addressed to Mr. Radka who seems to be convinced that Anderson knew. I agree with you on the Goulston Street wall writing as well, it wasn't very large.

Best Wishes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard

Post Number: 97
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 10:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

AIP....Thats my impression of the GSG, based solely on Halse's description of it. I tend to think its accurate...Awful small,ain't it ?

Since Bullwinkle Vidocq has graced us with his lack of social skills by appearing here, here's a couple of points to ponder,as I will refrain from perpetuating his thread,as intended by the crack case-solver...se a cabo, ya estuvo..

I may have said this before,AIP,but when Anderson says ..."after the only person who saw him found out that the suspect was a Jew, he declined to swear to him.."...this opens the entire perception pf what transpired at the Seaside Home to scrutiny.

If Lawende or Levy HAD seen the suspect well enough....meaning a good look at their face,of course...

1. Either Jewish man would have known PRIOR to the trip to the Seaside Home that the suspect was a Jew.
Its possible that some people feel uncomfortable about discussing this aspect. I certainly think this line of thinking is worth mulling over,despite the humility of some folks,perhaps, a little intimidated arguing with some Ripper authors views and raising any politically incorrect assumptions of anti-Semitism by bringing them up.

This aspect has been considered by the Columbo from Connecticut. He dogmatizes hook, line, and sinker the passage in Blackwood's 1910 article.

...and for good reason [ if only to him]...it only reinforces his fixation/belief in his theory.....

2. Why presume that either Lawende or Levy would have known he was a Jew prior to the Seaside Home trip? The time between the initial sighting and the Seaside Home affair was ample time to ascertain the ethnicity of the suspect[ probably instanter in all reality..]in the mind of either witness. Which ever witness was taken to the Seaside Home knew what he was being taken there for....which ever witness was taken that day knew in advance,apparently, what the suspect looked like,hence what ethnicity,if he had dark or light hair,was shaven,had pimples,his height,his stance,etc..which is why they were brought there in the first place.

But we are supposed to swallow Anderson's casual ethnically insensitive remarks about Jews not turning Jews in... and take this lying down???. Would anyone contemplate for a second that Anglo Saxons would harbor one of their own ? How about the French? Irish ?


Its absolutely plausible that a Jew committed the WM...no doubt.

Not re-evaluating Anderson is a mistake and one some folks tend to be gun-shy about.

Attempting to slight me,instead of what I say,seems to be the fixation of,as we say in Yiddish,the nebbish,who has become the front man of the ORIGINAL Moustache Pete of Ripperology...Buy the Casebook CD and see why.



(Message edited by howard on October 27, 2004)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard

Post Number: 99
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 11:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostView Post/Check IPPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

...and that reminds me: Why doesn't Mr.Moneybags,of the 40,000 dollars-that-no-college-ever-shelled-out-for-a-thesis-*, register and start contributing to Casebook,instead of being a freeloader...Hmm?

* Radka....here's a chance to make me eat my words.....WHO paid 40,000 bucks for your re-hash of Nietzsche? Right now bubeleh...don't be a momser....PUT UP OR SHUT UP. TIME TO BE A MENSCH....
Or will this be the third question you avoid answering from The Pride of The Proles?

Avoid me and prove I am right....you're conditioned to that...and the odds and Gods are in my favor.

How Brown

(Message edited by howard on October 27, 2004)

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.