Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

I’ve always read it that the reaction was both ways. They reacted at each other.

Which had me puzzling a couple of things last night?

Firstly: Monty is correct, Anderson must have known the law. And Anderson always chooses his words carefully and has time to amend any errors and be precise..

But by the time the reported ID took place surely the most obvious and worrying thing for Anderson was not the Witness not giving evidence but the FACT that the suspect must have been completely insane?

Secondly, and this one really is only a speculative, out there, off the top of my head suggestion…

What if Anderson was protecting an informant from the suspects family?

If Kosminski’s sister went to Anderson and said ‘I think my brothers the Ripper’

Would that not explain at least Andersons reluctance to use the name Kosminski

Just a thought

Van Clump

[robhouse]

Hello Fisherman,

I do not mean to be argumentative, but I think it is more your own choice of words ("Yep, that´s the guy") that conveys certainty, as opposed to the immediate nature of the response. After all, obviously, we do not know any way near enough to characterize what actually happened. The suspect may have been brought out at which point the witness unhesitatingly:

a. simply nodded his head,
b. said something like "Yes I think so"
c. said something like, "That looks like him."
d. said something like "I dont remember it very well, but yes, I think that's the man."
etc.

Your scenario:
f. "Yep, that´s the guy"

is obviously another possible option, but certainly not the only one.

And given the fact that the witness only briefly saw the suspect, in the dark, probably at a distance, probably a year or more earlier, it seems unlikely that he would have been so sure of his identification.

That does not mean the identification should be discounted of course.

But how else would you explain it? If the witness professed his certainty, he would surely have been forced to testify (as has been pointed out here.) But this did not happen?

So what is the other solution?

Rob H

[Fisherman]

Hi again, Rob!

I see what you are getting at, and are of course correct; the "unhesitating" identification may have looked in many different ways.
What I turned against was just the notion that you suggested that a lack of hesitation would not necessarily point to a larger certainty in the mind of the witness, and technically, I do believe that a lack of hesitation must be considered a good sign of a perceived certainty!

Of course, if we accept that there was such certainty about, we need to move on to the question about why the witnessed was not forced to testify, but that lies beyond the part I was commenting on - that it actually seems like Anderson took every precaution not to leave us with much of a chance to accept that the witness would NOT have been sure about his identification.
There are so many elements involved that we are left with a very hard nut to crack here. Maybe there was an element of swaggering in Andersons assertion, maybe th passing years had had an impact on his picture of things - you and me are even interpreting the mentioned lack of hesitation in radically different fashions, obviously. And if you say that you have a nagging feeling that there was much less certainty involved in it all than what Andersons words seem to imply, well, then I must side with you to a very large extent!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

The witness would first have became such on the night he witnessed the person,and would at that time have been aware of who the person was.As the person to be identified was also known by name to the police,I see no reason why the witness had to be taken to a seaside home to make an identification.All that needed to be asked,was if the witness would stand in court and state his knowledge.He could then have stated his reluctance to incriminate the said suspect.No need then for a wasted journey.That is of course,if there ever was a suspect,and an identification,which I very much doubt.

[Monty]

Harry,

Amen to that.

The whole Seaside Home ID story is an extremely dubious one.

In my humble opinion of course.

Monty

[Jeff Leahy]

You can both shout elephants are pink as loud as you like.

The simple fact remains that Martin Fido, who is after all an expert on Victorian literature, doesn’t believe that Anderson would have invented the story.

And as Anderson’s story is supported by Swanson in the marginalia, (which no one has ever provided a logical explanation for NOT being genuine) It seems most probable that some sort of Identification occurred.

The problems then start from a number of contextual contradictions.

I think it probable that your correct that there is more to this ID than meets the eye.

But for me the simple inclusion of an inside informant and Anderson protecting someone, makes the most sense. Given what is known about his personality.

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

[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]

If, indeed, Swanson wrote the marginalia.

No sun here Jeff, just cloud.

Monty

[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

[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.

[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!

[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

[Septic Blue]

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!

[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.