Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[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

[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

[Tom_Wescott]

Not really Chris quite mortal.

Chris Quite Mortal? Is that like Mary Quite Contrary?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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

[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

[Natalie Severn]

Rob,
It is not "just my opinion" that Aaron Kosminski was not Jack the Ripper.

In 1903 Abberline gave two interviews to the Pall Mall Gazette categorically refuting

a] the notion that Jack the Ripper was a "lunatic" .
Note: Aaron Kosminski had been incarcerated in a lunatic asylum for twelve years at the time of Abberline"s statement.

and Abberline continued even more determinedly in the second article:

b] You can state most emphatically that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was 15 years ago......

c] Abberline then showed the reporter documentary evidence which proved that the case had never been solved and added

"NO;the IDENTITY of the diabolical individual has yet to been established..."

Moreover, as I posted earlier today,Sir Henry Smith,Cityof London Chief Police Commissioner attacked Anderson bitterly for making such a reckless accusation about the Jewish community.
As Philip Sugden says in "The Complete History of JtR,"
"You can be sure too that if Kosminski had been the ripper Macnaghten, Abberline and Henry Smith must have known the truth and had the case been solved these men would have been only too glad to say so.So by disassociating themselves from Anderson at this point they demonstrated that Anderson"s claim to have "definitively identified the murderer was simply addle headed nonsense"
Philip Sugden page 420 as above.

Best
Norma


Jeff,
Then shame on you,for Aaron Kosminski,his family and his name have been far more maligned for perpetuity than ever Anderson"s or Swanson"s or any of their family ever have.

[Stewart P Evans]

'The Swanson Marginalia'

I see that the troublemaker is still getting his facts wrong. Or perhaps he isn't being briefed properly.

One of 'the guys' was with me in 2000 (not 2002) when I discovered and remarked upon the problems with the annotations. It was not really my place to follow it up and whatever course that may have been taken would surely have upset a frail old gentleman who had gone to the trouble of producing the book for us and had shown us great hospitality. Indeed, any query as to the status of the 'marginalia', I realised, would be taken as a suggestion that fakery might be involved and he was really the only person who would have had the opportunity to do it. I was not going to abuse his hospitality by allowing him to be upset. Jim Swanson and his wife were very old and there was no way that I wanted them to be pestered and upset in their twilight years.

Anyway, I was not thinking fakery, I was just very concerned that there were discrepancies in the two sets of handwriting in the book in that they were written with a different pencil, despite the fact that the second set was written as a continuation of the first, and the second set appeared to be in a shakier hand. But I was very surprised that these differences were visible to the naked eye yet had not been picked up upon previously. But in considering what I had seen I thought that there may be nothing in a different pencil being used as a second pencil may have been picked up to write the second set of notes, and the greater space available on the rear free endpaper might account for the difference in the writing.

And so it remained, but the more I thought about it the more I felt that given the deep and prolonged interest in the 'marginalia' and the importance attached to it in 'Ripperworld' then others at least had the right to know and be aware of the full facts. Otherwise I was keeping silent about something I found to be a bit disquieting. However, it was not until after Jim Swanson passed away that I made a post on these boards, long before 2006 and the Davies report. The result was as I anticipated. I was immediately and aggressively attacked by Martin Fido who issued dire warnings of libel action. I did point out that I was not alleging fakery against anyone but that I was merely pointing out factual and physical aspects of the 'marginalia' that had apparently been previously missed.

There are those here who may remember the furore and who may have copies of these threads. So I put this into the public domain as soon as it was possible to do so without upsetting Jim Swanson or expose him to the inevitable cries of fakery that some would raise. Bearing in mind the great importance that Messrs Fido and Begg place on the 'marginalia' I was surprised that when the dust settled after this episode nothing was done to look further into it. But at least I had now 'gone public' with my observations and others could bring these important factors into any assessment that they may make of the 'marginalia.' Testing for a private individual would have been very expensive so at that time I did not anticipate that any would be done.

Finally, as we know, Keith Skinner approached Jim Swanson's son Nevill and the book was handed over to the safe keeping of the Crime Museum at New Scotland Yard. I had nothing at all to do with this. On receiving the book the examination by Dr. Davies was carried out and a nine-page report dated 3 November 2006 was produced. This report confirmed what I had claimed about the annotations and, I felt, justified my 'going public' with my concerns. As far as I know no evidence exists to suggest fakery. Dr. Davies concluded that his findings did not show unequivocally that Swanson was the writer of the questioned writing but they did strongly support this proposition.

[Tom_Wescott]

That seems pretty much the 'Final Word' on the issues being discussed, as far as I'm concerned.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,
Then shame on you,for Aaron Kosminski,his family and his name have been far more maligned for perpetuity than ever Anderson"s or Swanson"s or any of their family ever have.

Norma, there is no shame. The simple and unaviodable fact is that Ripperology is by its nature the act of accusing innocent people. All be it that your preferred suspect was guilt y of something, you have no proof he was guilty of the Ripper crimes.

Like it or not, as long as Andersons comments are backed by Swansons, the leading contender, the number one suspect, and probably the only suspect apart from Druitt, is Aaron.

All the best

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

the number one suspect, and probably the only suspect apart from Druitt, is Aaron.

And the revelations keep on coming.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

No Tom they are only just starting:

I see that the troublemaker is still getting his facts wrong. Or perhaps he isn't being briefed properly.

One of 'the guys' was with me in 2000 (not 2002) when I discovered and remarked upon the problems with the annotations

Yes I know, Keith Skinner, a name you have seemed very reluctant to mention. But someone else who had also examined the document and failed to notice the difference in pencil colour.

It appears that I over estimated, out of caution, the time frame and we now have a tearful sob story. However the simple fact remains that while poring criticism on Paul Begg and Martin Fido. Stewart Evans was aware of the discrepancies yet failed to do or say anything about them.

Instead of doing what I would have done, or probably what most of you would have done, i.e. bought up those concerns in private and sort to have done something about them. He clearly choose to do nothing. To let the problem fester.

By his own admission he simply sat back and did nothing. And now has the audacity to point he figure at other people.

And while Tom Wescott has made an excellent case that things should have been clarified by Begg and Fido in 1888. It seems apparent that as early as 2000, Stewart Evans had the opportunity to address the situation (he was after all the person who spotted the discrepancies) and come to an early resolution.

This could easily have been achieved in private with Keith, Paul and Martin, I simply do not see why Jim Swanson need to have been involved?

So I ask again, why did SPE choose not to bring up his concerns with his fellow Rip-authorities? And seek further expert opinion at an earlier opertunity.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;98490]Norma, there is no shame. The simple and unaviodable fact is that Ripperology is by its nature the act of accusing innocent people. All be it that your preferred suspect was guilt y of something, you have no proof he was guilty of the Ripper crimes.

Like it or not, as long as Andersons comments are backed by Swansons, the leading contender, the number one suspect, and probably the only suspect apart from Druitt, is Aaron.

All the best

Pirate[/QUOTE.

Jeff,
You can fool some of the people some of the time,all of the people some of the time but you cant fool all of the people all of the time.

but dont let us keep you from living in cloud cuckoo land........

[Jeff Leahy]

PS I've just noticed that I accuse Begg and Fido of examining the document in 1888...clearly this should read 1988...even though I except that they are very old and crusty

[The Grave Maurice]

Geez, I only hope that no outsiders read this thread. Otherwise, they're going to think that we're ALL nuts.