Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris is annoying as hell to debate with because he's usually correct. When he locks horns with you, the best you can do is to try and wear him out quick so he'll go away, before everyone figures out you just put your foot in your mouth. It rarely works, but it's worth a try. He should be more courteous and screw up royally once in a while like the rest of us, but he's made his choice. As for myself, I refuse to indulge in such unabated accuracy.

As for Stewart and what he knew and who he told and how he handled it, he's discussed that elsewhere, and I'd be surprised if you didn't know that. So enough with trying to make him the bad guy here.

You're like that guy who shot President Reagan to impress Jodie Foster, only in this scenario, Stewart is Reagan and Paul Begg is Jodie Foster...only not as pretty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate,

Had Chris turned a blind eye to the evidence in favor of blindly defending a bunch of people he'd never met before, then he probably wouldn't have the respect he currently commands on these boards.

No he does not, Chris commands respect because despite the fact that he is annoyingly ‘panickerty’ he’s actually a damn good researcher.


Some time back when I first saw it being seriously suggested that the marginalia MIGHT be bogus, I jumped out of my hat. I was thoroughly annoyed by this because I thought it was just being questioned for the sake of questioning it, as that has been the trend in Ripperology the last few years. Since that time I've come to see there was real reason in 1988 to step back and say 'hmmm'. Unfortunately, nobody did that then, and a lot of questions that could have and should have been asked were not.
Do I think the marginalia is legit? Yes I do. But it's not proved beyond doubt.

This may surprise you Tom but actually I’m in total agreement with you here.

However SPE posts seemed to be suggesting, or in Chris’s words, ‘creating an impression’ that Martin and Paul well ‘Ballsd Up’.

Which I think is most unfair. They clearly acted as they saw fit at the time and to the best of their ability. And lets face it SPE claims himself to have noticed the colour deference in 2002. So why didn’t he speak up then?

Why did he not phone the guys and say ‘hey you know what I think we’ve missed something lets get it double checked.”

Stewart choose to remain silent until pretty much the Press release of the Davis Report. Surely if he was as concerned as he claims to be, he should have done something sooner.

But as I’ve said before, hind sight is a wonderful thing.

Pirate

[Chris]

I don’t ever recall you or anybody else on this thread jumping to the defense of the Swanson children when accused of deception (All be it in a fictitious scenario), however you were pretty quick to fane shock horror when it suited you, in relation to my question.

No. As I said before, no one here has made any accusation whatsoever of wrongdoing against any member of the Swanson family.

What happened was that - in response to your repeated requests for someone to suggest an alternative scenario - someone did just that. They made clear that it was a purely hypothetical scenario, not any kind of "accusation".

That was not a scenario I expressed any kind of support for. As I have pointed out, I didn't even comment on it. As it happens, I find it extremely implausible - but I'm certainly not going to start posting comments to these boards at your behest, or at anyone else's.

It is contemptible for you to try to portray me as somehow condoning an attack on the Swanson family. I have done no such thing, and you know it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Not really Chris quite mortal.

Chris Quite Mortal? Is that like Mary Quite Contrary?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

Had Chris turned a blind eye to the evidence in favor of blindly defending a bunch of people he'd never met before, then he probably wouldn't have the respect he currently commands on these boards.

Some time back when I first saw it being seriously suggested that the marginalia MIGHT be bogus, I jumped out of my hat. I was thoroughly annoyed by this because I thought it was just being questioned for the sake of questioning it, as that has been the trend in Ripperology the last few years. Since that time I've come to see there was real reason in 1988 to step back and say 'hmmm'. Unfortunately, nobody did that then, and a lot of questions that could have and should have been asked were not.
Do I think the marginalia is legit? Yes I do. But it's not proved beyond doubt.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[robhouse]

............and to my mind that would have been a harmless scenario compared with a senior policeman,tainting forever the name of a defenceless and almost certainly innocent man with the heinous crimes of Jack the Ripper.......

Natalie,

First of all, this is just your opinion. I am aware that you are perfectly ready to throw out everything Anderson said, and I am also aware you think Anderson was a racist, who was also probably self-deluded, lying, demented etc.

Aaron Kosminski,in his entire 30 year period of incarceration in an asylum,was considered "harmless" and not a "danger to others"...

I have remarked on this before, and you are simply saying the same thing again. I believe that the statement as to Aaron being "Not dangerous to others" came from only 1 source, (specifically Aaron's admission order), and was simply copied into the Colney Hatch Asylum day book.

Furthermore, Aaron's Leavesden admission does not (I believe) say anything about whether or not Aaron was dangerous. And as I have pointed out to you numerous times before, we do not have records for the "entire 30 year period of incarceration in an asylum" so I dont see where you can come off as saying this.

All we have basically is 3 years of Colney Hatch documentation, and an addition 9 years from Leavesden (from 1910 to 1919). There is one reference to Aaron being Not dangerous to others. Absolutely nothing is known for the period 1894-1910, so you can't go throwing around statements as to the entire period of Aaron's incarceration.

Rob H

[Chris]

If you weren’t discussing it directly you must have been aware that any suggestion that the marginalia wasn’t genuine had attached implications. I don’t recall you at any point jumping to the defense of the innocent.

You really are beyond belief. But I guess we knew that already.

[Natalie Severn]

What have we been discussing for the last few days if not a scenario in which Swanson's children learn the name Kosminski and Hoax the marginalia?

Pirate

............and to my mind that would have been a harmless scenario compared with a senior policeman,tainting forever the name of a defenceless and almost certainly innocent man with the heinous crimes of Jack the Ripper.
Aaron Kosminski,in his entire 30 year period of incarceration in an asylum,was considered "harmless" and not a "danger to others" by the medical staff who cared for him and noted this down.Aaron was never tried in any court of law,and in fact ,had no record of violence , his only documented appearance in a court of law was in November 1889 ,a full year after the JtR murders and was about him walking a dog "without a muzzle",along Cheapside that Autumn, when he was 24 years old.
So do you have some kind of hierarchy of comparison when it comes to injustices against the dead ,whereby Swanson"s family are sacrosanct whereas Kosminski"s family can endure the indignity of being branded relatives of Jack the Ripper?

[Jeff Leahy]

Fairly bear faced actually Chris, as that is the topic that sparked the entire conversation up and running. If you weren’t discussing it directly you must have been aware that any suggestion that the marginalia wasn’t genuine had attached implications. I don’t recall you at any point jumping to the defense of the innocent. Not that I’m suggesting that either you or SPE believe that its hoaxed because you have both clearly stated ‘Swanson Probably wrote it”

However I simply asked where SPE was going with his FACTS.

Which given there connotations seemed like fair play.

As I said, he was free to refute them, they were questions not accusations.

Pirate

[Chris]

What have we been discussing for the last few days if not a scenario in which Swanson's children learn the name Kosminski and Hoax the marginalia?

Well, if you think I've been discussing that scenario, you really are clueless, because I don't believe I've even mentioned it!

How dare you try to give people the impression that "we all" have somehow been calumniating the Swanson family, just because one person put forward a hypothetical scenario in direct response to your repeated requests for someone to do just that?

[Jeff Leahy]

What have we been discussing for the last few days if not a scenario in which Swanson's children learn the name Kosminski and Hoax the marginalia?

Pirate

[Chris]

Although you all seemed quite happy to make the same ‘Possibility’ when talking about Swanson’s children. And they are not here to defend themselves.

You really are the most contemptible kind of troublemaker.

You know perfectly well that no one here has made any kind of accusation of wrongdoing against any member of the Swanson family.

[Tom_Wescott]

I’m just posing some questions, SPE if free to refute them.

What does it say of your motives that your questions require refutation instead of good old fashioned answers? I think it's time you find another dead horse to pummel into glue, PJ.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

I’m just posing some questions, SPE if free to refute them.

However if everyone is very upset by the question we’ll cross the ‘deliberate deception’ off the list.

Although you all seemed quite happy to make the same ‘Possibility’ when talking about Swanson’s children. And they are not here to defend themselves.

Pirate

[Chris]

Fair enough Stewart. However the FACTS you posted seemed to be indicating one of those three possibilities.

It's bad news for Begg, Fido and Skinner if you - of all people - think that the FACTS indicate deliberate deception on their part!

But clearly Stewart hasn't implied he thinks any such thing, and I can't believe it's in the interest of anyone concerned for you to try to give people the impression he has.