Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Howard

Firstly my apologies for not replying sooner. However I had the kids yesterday, and thought a few well off hours had been deserved enjoying their company.

“Jeff...what does it mean to you that the eminent gentleman & scholar Dr. Fido is a qualified historian who has a good insight into the mind of SRA by virtue of reading and analyzing his collected works?”

Well that’s not what I said. I said that Martin Fido was an expert in Victorian literature. I’ll quote Martin: “In retirement Anderson devoted himself to charitable work and writing. A prolific author, he produced nearly two dozen books on theology, numerous articles for various journals, a book on penology (criminals and Crime), and an autobiography (the lighter side of my official life) His last years were spent in isolation caused by deafness. “

While I’m aware that Martin Fido is also a recognized authority on ‘Jack the Ripper’ and the period, it is his expertise in Anderson’s writings that I was alluring to and the specific point of whether Anderson was capable of inventing the story of an ID parade. Martin ‘As an expert in Victorian literature’ does not believe him capable of inventing such a story. And I was quoting Martin as I would quote or use any expert in a certain field.

(Of course, my old boss once told me that an expert is anyone who has read more than two books on a subject and is willing to sign a release form for less that a hundred quid. But it’s NOT an opinion I share or would work to myself.)

“Tell you what it means to me. It means he has a well-formed opinion of SRA based on his written work. It in no way makes me think that Anderson's words can't be separated from his actions. I can think of many people whose written works are at odds with their deeds....NOT that Anderson was significantly different if one compares the written with the actual, but that instances such as Anderson claiming to be able to deduce the guilt or innocence of a man accused of a crime by his physical reaction... need to be taken into consideration when we assess what he wrote...and he indeed did write that. He also wrote that no one would have believed Rose Mylett was murdered had it not been for the Whitechapel Murders.

Yes, my confusion was that what is known of his actions are also in written form and all analysis of his character is in writing. But I take your point.

Martin goes on. “ Anderson was obviously a complex character, but for the researcher trying to access his statements about the identity of jack the Ripper, it is his honesty which is of overall importance.”

At no point have I ever suggested that Anderson is NOT a complex issue. However it would be totally irresponsible for anyone researching the subject not to take very seriously indeed the claim by the person in charge of the case that the ‘identity’ was a ‘definitely ascertained Fact”

And as this claim is backed up by the person with over all responsibility for the investigation in a set of notes only ever intended for private use. I’d say that it is most improbable that the story of an ID parade is complete fabrication.

What I was doing was agreeing with Monty that it’s probable that we don’t have the full story. However given Andersons and Swanson’s claims together, and taking into account expert opinion, I think it fair to say that some sort of ID probably took place.

“Its difficult to make posts which mention Dr. Fido's knowledge of SRA and while deferring sincerely and openly to the great man's extraordinary acumen, at the same time honestly mentioning that one person's observation of what Anderson was really like based on what he wrote proves only that what someone with the extraordinary knowledge a Dr. Fido has is still his esteemed opinion....and opinion only.”

This is true. However as already explained it is his opinion as an ‘EXPERT’ in a specific field that I was seeking rather than an authority on jack the Ripper.

“It does not mean that Anderson was able to walk between the raindrops in life and not occasionally stretch the truth of a matter or if not necessarily prevaricating, being completely or nearly completely in the minority of a contemporary position....such as his choice of whom the Ripper was...the determination of Mylett's murder...and the poor sap who was found guilty by virtue of his reaction.. in the court of law that was SRA on occasion.”

Again no one is disputing the complexity of Andersons Character. It is an area I have much discussed and listened to from various authorities on the case. And indeed an important and complicated area when considering the supposed identification. However it is on the specific area of Andersons claims about Jack the Ripper and whether, on balance, his claims might have been fabrication and Lies that I was interested in addressing here.

For what its worth my opinion is that something else was going, which is why Anderson was careful with his words in public and why Swanson only released the name in private. And it is with Rob House’s ideas and theories on the subject of the Crawford letter and Kosminski's sister that I am in most concordance.

As a number of other posts have arisen I will quickly address them:

To my knowledge Martin Fido is not a Dr, although clearly there can be few people more deserving of being made so.

As for the ‘Hollywood’ opus magnus scenario, my suggestions are Johnny Depp as Jim Swanson, and his evil brother and master forger played by Russell Crow, with Kate Winslett playing the younger sister who has a photographic memory and gets the spelling spot on while creating all the other bits of Marginalia and impersonating Donald in a frock. In the end jack the Ripper himself comes down in a spacecraft and flies away with the Fairies.

All the best
Pirate

PS Dr John Watson: Congratulations you were the only person to come up with a scenario that could truly be described as RESONABLE.

[Stewart P Evans]

Point of Fact

...what does it mean to you that the eminent gentleman & scholar Dr. Fido is a qualified historian who has a good insight into the mind of SRA by virtue of reading and analyzing his collected works?

This is not a personal attack nor is it meant to 'devalue' anything, but merely as a point of fact surely Martin Fido is not entitled to be called 'Dr.' (someone please correct me if I'm wrong for he may have since qualified) nor is he a qualified historian.

My understanding of Colin's post is that, if one of Swanson's children wrote the marginalia based on an account passed down to them by their father, then he or she would be documenting what their father said. They would, in effect, have been acting in the role of a de facto amanuensis, preserving for posterity the content of what Swanson himself believed to be true. The content has perhaps become secondary to the debates over provenance of late. It would naturally have been better if the marginalia were actually penned by Swanson - but Colin's point wasn't about that.

Very well stated, Gareth!

I will only add that the reality of such a scenario, would maintain the integrity of the 'marginalia' content, while lending a degree of explicability to its inconsistencies with the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski.

[Sam Flynn]

How would this make the content of the marginalia more credible than if DSS himself simply wrote it?

Can you please try to explain more clearly what you mean... in layman's terms?

My understanding of Colin's post is that, if one of Swanson's children wrote the marginalia based on an account passed down to them by their father, then he or she would be documenting what their father said. They would, in effect, have been acting in the role of a de facto amanuensis, preserving for posterity the content of what Swanson himself believed to be true. The content has perhaps become secondary to the debates over provenance of late. It would naturally have been better if the marginalia were actually penned by Swanson - but Colin's point wasn't about that.

[robhouse]

Colin,

I have to admit, I have absolutely no idea what you are getting at here. It seems that you are saying the content of the marginalia would be more credible, if it had been instead forged by one of DSS's children (and signed with his initials).

How would this make the content of the marginalia more credible than if DSS himself simply wrote it?

Can you please try to explain more clearly what you mean... in layman's terms?

RH

the simple fact that this scenario - were it (or any variant thereof) to be a reality - would lend... credence to the content of the margin/end notes...

An interesting, and valid, observation, Colin.

Thank you, Gareth!

It should be noted that the general basis of the hypothetical scenario and corresponding observation is not my 'baby', so to speak, but that of another interested party, with whom I have had lengthy discussions regarding the issue at hand, i.e. the so-called 'Swanson Marginalia'.

For objectivity's sake, I will paraphrase the observation in somewhat the same manner that you have effected:

While the above hypothetical scenario may seem somewhat … unlikely; it is indeed "reasonable".

The scenario - were it (or any variant thereof) to be a reality - would lend a degree of much needed credence to the content of the margin/end notes, i.e. the so-called 'Swanson Marginalia'.

[Sam Flynn]

the simple fact that this scenario - were it (or any variant thereof) to be a reality - would lend... credence to the content of the margin/end notes...

An interesting, and valid, observation, Colin.

No one has ever come up with a reasonable argument who, where, when or why the Marginalia might have been a hoax.

A distinct possibility would be a failed attempt on the part of one of Swanson's five children to uphold a certain 'family tradition' (e.g. that the 'old man' cracked the case; and that the culprit was someone named 'Kosminski', who lived with his brother).

- "failed" in as much as some of the 'facts' are inaccurate.

A "reasonable" scenario that is indeed a … possibility:

- Sometime in 1891-1892, 'Father' tells young Donald (Jim Swanson's father), who is 12 or 13 at the time, that he has recently helped to identify 'Jack the Ripper': Someone named 'Kosminski', who was not arrested and accordingly charged with 'murder', but was instead sent to a workhouse in the East End, and then to the asylum in Colney Hatch.

- Sometime in 1893-1894, 'Father' tells young James, who is 12 or 13 at the time, … the same story.

- Sometime in 1896-1897, 'Father' tells young Ada, who is 12 or 13 at the time, … the same story.

- Sometime in 1899-1900, 'Father' tells young Douglas, who is 12 or 13 at the time, … the same story.

- Sometime in 1901-1902, 'Father' tells young Alice, who is 12 or 13 at the time, … the same story.

- Sometime after Donald Swanson's death, in 1924, two or three of his 'children' decide to scribble a few notes in one of his favorite books, in order to uphold a certain 'family tradition'.

While this hypothetical scenario may seem somewhat … unlikely; it is indeed "reasonable".

What the 'Polish Jew' theorists cannot seem to grasp, is the simple fact that this scenario - were it (or any variant thereof) to be a reality - would lend infinitely more credence to the content of the margin/end notes, i.e. the so-called 'Swanson Marginalia', than would any conceivable amount of "scholarly" foot-stomping insistence that the notes are of genuine provenance, because … one says so.

It has an excellent provenance.

The provenance of the so-called 'Swanson Marginalia' is indeed … questionable!

[Jeff Leahy]

There is only mirky water if you are looking for it.

No one has ever come up with a reasonable argument who, where, when or why the Marginalia might have been a hoax.

No expert examiner has ever claimed its faked.

and It has an excellent provenance.

In short if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and goes quack..

It’s a duck

Pirate

[Dr. John Watson]

I have always believed that Schwartz was the witness Anderson/Swanson were referring to. Schwartz had a much better view of Stride's attacker and for a longer period of time than Lawende had of Eddowes' supposed killer. Schwartz would have had no problem identifying Kosminski as the man who threw Stride to the pavement, and, fellow Jew or not, he probably would have testified against Kosminski if the charge had been simple assault or drunk and disorderly. But realizing the man he identified was likely to be charged with murder as Jack the Ripper, he had second thoughts. He had seen no knife in Kosminski's hand and no evidence that Kosminski intended to kill Stride or anyone else. In fact, Stride was alive on the pavement outside the crowded workingman's club when he last saw her. What Schwartz witnessed was a simple assault, not a murder. Yet, he must have realized that with the public so aroused, his identification alone would likely be enough to send Kosminski to the gallows, especially since he was a Jew. Under those circumstances, he correctly refused to testify

The irony here is, while Schwartz's suspect was likely not Jack the Ripper, Lawende's suspect was almost certainly the real McCoy!

[Howard Brown]

Martins reputation stands alone, however his standing is irrelevant when it comes to Anderson and his views. He is merely being led by Andersons words, as we all are.”--Monty

I’m not certain what you mean by this Monty? Surely all anybody can go by are Andersons ‘Words’ unless they had actually met him. And I don’t think Martin is that old?--Jeff
**********************

Jeff...what does it mean to you that the eminent gentleman & scholar Dr. Fido is a qualified historian who has a good insight into the mind of SRA by virtue of reading and analyzing his collected works?

Tell you what it means to me. It means he has a well formed opinion of SRA based on his written work. It in no way makes me think that Anderson's words can't be separated from his actions. I can think of many people whose written works are at odds with their deeds....NOT that Anderson was significantly different if one compares the written with the actual, but that instances such as Anderson claiming to be able to deduce the guilt or innocence of a man accused of a crime by his physical reaction... need to be taken into consideration when we assess what he wrote...and he indeed did write that. He also wrote that no one would have believed Rose Mylett was murdered had it not been for the Whitechapel Murders.

Its difficult to make posts which mention Dr. Fido's knowledge of SRA and while deferring sincerely and openly to the great man's extraordinary acumen, at the same time honestly mentioning that one person's observation of what Anderson was really like based on what he wrote proves only that what someone with the extraordinary knowledge a Dr. Fido has is still his esteemed opinion....and opinion only.

It does not mean that Anderson was able to walk between the raindrops in life and not occasionally stretch the truth of a matter or if not necessarily prevaricating, being completely or nearly completely in the minority of a contemporary position....such as his choice of whom the Ripper was...the determination of Mylett's murder...and the poor sap who was found guilty by virtue of his reaction.. in the court of law that was SRA on occasion.

[Suzi]

Good point Mont...is there any 'evidence' that Swanson actually picked up his scribbling pencil to scribble on anything - let alone in the margins- thinking again - anyone could have done that!!!!....at any time....

Murky and rainy here too!!

Suzi x

[Monty]

If, indeed, Swanson wrote the marginalia.

No sun here Jeff, just cloud.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Monty

“Martins reputation stands alone, however his standing is irrelevant when it comes to Anderson and his views. He is merely being led by Andersons words, as we all are.”

I’m not certain what you mean by this Monty? Surely all anybody can go by are Andersons ‘Words’ unless they had actually met him. And I don’t think Martin is that old?

Surely the point is that Martin is an expert in Victorian literature and has studied all the books and writings created by Anderson. I think we can also assume that we is familiar with the writings and understandings of the period and the context in which they sit.

“Besides, the fact Martin doesnt question the legalities and implications indicates either a limited legal and procedual knowledge or a reluctance to address them.”

Martin is also not an expert in psychology. What he is qualified to access is moral and religious sensibilities based on his writing. And from that perspective he does not think Anderson capable of lyng on this particular matter.

“However, that said, you are correcting in alluding that all the facts may not be known.”

Yes, it is on this point that I have been agreeing with YOU.

“Shame no official document survives in the MEPO or HO records.”

No , but interestingly Swanson could not have known this at the time he wrote the marginalia. He must have thought the truth would out eventually.

Trusting your enjoying the last of the Summer sunshine and all is well with you.

Pirate

[Monty]

Jeff,

Martins reputation stands alone, however his standing is irrelevant when it comes to Anderson and his views. He is merely being led by Andersons words, as we all are.

Besides, the fact Martin doesnt question the legalities and implications indicates either a limited legal and procedual knowledge or a reluctance to address them.

However, that said, you are correcting in alluding that all the facts may not be known.

Shame no official document survives in the MEPO or HO records.

Monty