Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[fido]

Off-topic?
Nope. We're talkjing about scholarship, and want to be shown how spending time investigating the genuine nature of the Swanson marginalia differs as a useful schilarly exercise from investigating the authorship of Paradise Lost or a Beethoven symphony.
All the best,
Martin

[fido]

Hi Howard!
I have to state again, that Anderson's pressure on the medical profession to reach the conclusion he wanted, and his pointblank refusal to accept a decision that went against his opinion was something I took into account and mentioned in my first discussion of him 20 years ago. There is nothing surprising about his refusing to change his mind in his memoirs, and the "manipulation of the facts" ten years later is not quite that: it's a pig-headed refusal to accept that the overwhelming medical evidence pointed against his and the discovering officer's belief that on-site evidence (presumably footprints) showed no sign of a struggle. "Anderson could have been wrong. He was always opinionated." What's wrong with that conclusion? Where has anyone got any evidence to suggest that he would make up a story almost out of whole cloth to bolster his reputation. He was wrong about Rose Mylett in my opinion: he might equally have been wrong about the Polish Jew. But in both cases he believed what he was saying. He was not lying. (Perhaps I should pat myself on the back by noting that this discussion could hardly have happened if I hadn't, with some considerable effort, tracked down the Rose Mylett story. Previously she only existed in Ripper literature as the mysterious "Lizzie Davies" on the Scotland Yard files.)

Stewart - sorry - I've just seen your posting admitting to have done no work on the way people like Anderson's minds worked. Saying that you know people who disagree with my conclusions doesn't assist your case unless you can find some who have studied Anderson's central interest in life and the way it affected his behaviour. And I note with interest your belief that your involvement in a sexual murder case outweighs John Douglas's research and interviewing very large numbers of sexual serial murderers.

As for the FBI case, if you mean the original work which was unsupported by the in formation on David Cohen, then I agree, as does John Douglas, that that was vitiated bythe under-information. (Roy Hazelwood has evidently still no seen the further uinformation, or hadn't when hewrote his own book touching on the FBI profile.. And Roy, of course,does not have John's extensive experience of interviewing serial killers).

All the best,
MNartin F

[Stewart P Evans]

Off-topic

How about Beetobven and Milton?
And the Victorian evangelicals?
All the best,
Martin

Are you getting a bit off-topic Martin?

[Stewart P Evans]

Re-read

Hysterical, Stewart? I've no idea what you are referring to: I do recall your rather wildly accusing me of being "extremely dangerous" when I offered a gentle warning that statements implying forgery or deception by living people could result in libel actions. Other people had to point out to you that it was clear to them I was not threatening you, but offering friendly advice from my own sad experience of being sued on two occasions by proven villains.
Martin

I suggest that you re-read the 'offending' posts Martin. I made no libellous comment about anyone, and the only person my remarks could have been construed as referring to was Jim Swanson, and he by then had passed away and could not be subject of any libel action. Having studied the law of tort, before joining the police force and studying the criminal law, I have a basic working knowledge of such things.

[fido]

Ah, the Littlechild letter. Well, I would expect something I accepted as genuine because I trusted Stewart's judgement to come through with flying colours when tested, whether (which i don't know) the tests preceded or followed Steart's acquisition of it. I don't see that i suggested anywhere that any large sums of money ever cganged hands: I only used it to point out how easily factitious suspicions of forgery can be invented.
How about Beetobven and Milton?
And the Victorian evangelicals?
All the best,
Martin

[fido]

Basically, so what to both Chris's and Stewart's observations?
Nit-picking about material they both agree to be genuine is time-wasting, and extremely misleading to people who really are coming fresh to the debate. Neither of them, I see, addresses my observation that their standard of "proof" might invite scholars to waste their time checking the genuine nature of Paradise Lost or a Beethoven Symphony.

Hysterical, Stewart? I've no idea what you are referring to: I do recall your rather wildly accusing me of being "extremely dangerous" when I offered a gentle warning that statements implying forgery or deception by living people could result in libel actions. Other people had to point out to you that it was clear to them I was not threatening you, but offering friendly advice from my own sad experience of being sued on two occasions by proven villains.

As for my becoming suddenly informed: I'm sacrificing a lot of time to do a trawl through everything in preparation for the Knoxville conference, where I owe it to Dan and Kelly to be up-to-date with what's being talked about. In no way was I stimulated or provoked to this by your return to banging on against Anderson and kosminski.

I look forward to hearing about your research into the thinking and behaviour of Victorian evangelicals, since you insist on calling my assessment of Anderson's probable truthfulness biassed and unobjective.

All the best,

Martin

[Stewart P Evans]

Littlechild Letter

Closer to home, as I've said before, the Littlechild letter might be open to even graver suspicion if one felt that an unscrupulous dealer somewhere along the line reckoned that Sims's correspondence would fetch a better price if it included some new Ripper ideas. I'd call anyone who seriously put forward that notion hopelessly unscholarly and obtuse - but ONLY because I know Stewart and am sure that his judgement is too good for him to be sold such a pup, and it is manifest that this is the opiion of everyone who has met him or studied his work carefully.All the best,
Martin F

Tut, tut Martin. It didn't take long for you to counter with the Littlechild letter, did it?

For a starter, not that it is any business of yours, no great price was ever paid for the Littlechild letter. In fact Eric Barton bought it together with a large amount of other George R Sims material, some of which I have. Eric didn't even realise the significance of it and sold it to me with other letters. Also, of course, it was subjected to forensic examination in 1996 by Dr. Audrey Giles and Peter Bower and declared to be genuine.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thought

Does Stewart concede as much about Littlechild's assertion that Anderson only thought he knew? And if he doesn't, on what study of Littlechild's character and personality does he base this unquestioning respect for his opinion?
Martin F

Oh dear - the gloves are off now! Littlechild makes the perfectly reasonable and common sense obervation that Anderson only thought he knew. And of course that statement is perfectly true Anderson did only think he knew - as any perfectly reasonable commentator should know. Littlechild enjoyed a very good reputation at was one of the few detective officers trusted by Williamson at the time of the scandal of the detectives.

[Howard Brown]

Since "we" are all fortunate to have both of you gentlemen here on this thread...perhaps SPE will bring up some of the issues found in the essential "Scotland Yard Investigates"...such as the possible confusion over Sadler's identification with that of the Seaside Home identification by SRA,as suggested in that important book by SPE....or that it does seem strange, to say the least, to some of us...why Swanson felt a need to write the marginalia in the first place. I for one do not understand the act at all,but I am not qualified to comment on the debate on its provenance. Are there any other officials' works which have marginalia that either of you two have ever seen of a supportive nature as found in the words of the Swanson Marginalia?

That Anderson manipulates the reader with his personal evaluation of the final judgment of the Mylett Case in retirement and decades after the event leads me,at least, to feel he could do so in other instances. Is it not possible to you,Mr. Fido. that he could have put his feelings above facts from time to time?

[Stewart P Evans]

Above Post

Where has Stewart found evidence of Anderson's offering the public bare-faced porkies without the cover of mental reservation? Where has he found him being deliberately and dishonestly misleading simply to aggrandise his own professional achievements? How does my comment undermine the - surely objective? - conclusion, "Anderson might have been wrong"? Martin F

I refer you to my above post on Anderson's remarks about the Poplar case. Anderson simply hated the idea of unsolved murders during his regime.

[Stewart P Evans]

How far has Stewart gone in researching the nature and character of born-again Christians in general, especially in the late Victorian period, and in researching Anderson's positions on ethics and theology, and the accounts of him by other people in this respect, to identify a lack of objectivity in my statement? What does he imagine I meant by "scrupulous" - (a very important adjective in the quotation)? Does he think I see the scruples of an evangelical fundamentalist as generally admirable?
What does Stewart know about sexual serial murderers that displaces the rather inforomed opinions of Dr Luigi Cancrini and John Douglas?
Martin F

Well, I have to admit that I have done no research into the nature and character of born-again Christians (although I have known a few in my time) but I am happy in the knowledge that many others agree with me on Martin's lack of objectivity. Oddly I know quite a bit about sexual serial killers and have many books on the subject. I have also dealt personally with a serial sexual offender who murdered a young girl (I found the body). I also know that I do not agree with the FBI reasoning on the Ripper case and some of the flawed information they have used.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Swanson Marginalia'

And to all who are offended that I have no respect for anyone who can't see why the provenance and appearance of the marginalia makes them unimpeachably genuine - sorry: it's your obtuse imperviousness to reason that I deplore. (By the way, am I the only person to remember indelible pencils - common items at one time that instantly explain the mysterious purple tinge). I'm sorrythat demurrers haven't had the formal training in scholarship to take for granted the importance of provenance, and its offering the virtual certainty that the Maybrick diary was fake while the Swanson papers are even more certainly genuine. Buit I have to set their position against that of equally untrained or self-trained scholars like Paul Begg and a host of other in the Ripper world who see it with ease. In no way do I base my respect for people's work on whether their general opinions concur with mine.Martin F

Here we go again. So now, obviously, Martin believes that I have an 'obtuse imperviousness to reason' that he deplores. And why? I think that we should take another, hopefully brief, look at this.

I well recall, a few years back, Martin's almost hysterical sudden appearance on the boards when I commented on the 'marginalia' that I had then actually seen and examined. (Martin gets mysteriously updated when it is felt that something has appeared on the boards that he should see and address. As witness his appearance now). You would have thought that the pencilled notes in the book were the Holy writ and how dare anyone even challenge them? Well let's see what it amounts to. I was not the first to raise a question (no accusations made) about the notes. A leading Ripper authority mentioned to me, c. 1992, that he was not happy about the rather odd notes on the rear free endpaper of the book and the very 'convenient' "Kosminski was the suspect." at the end of said notes. I really wasn't in a position to make any informed response as I had never actually seen the notes (I had only a photocopy) and I had always accepted them as perfectly genuine, albeit a bit puzzling for the comments of a senior police officer.

In 1991 Paul Harrison's book Jack the Ripper The Mystery Solved was published and in it was to be found the following -



He could not get away with this and the Begg/Fido response appeared in the A-Z - "Paul Harrison's suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded. Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

And that should (and apparently did) account for any 'Doubting Thomas' there might be. I have to admit that my own 'discomfort' with the endpaper notes were the anomalies and the fact that they did not sound like the words of a senior police officer nor the actions of a responsible police force. But, be that as it may, I still did not seriously doubt the source. After all, the Home Office document examiner had confirmed the handwriting and, apparently, had raised no issues over the notes.

I was very surprised to learn that the examination by the Home Office document examiner had amounted merely to photocopies of the notes and photocopies of Swanson's handwriting from the official files being sent to the examiner who had pronounced them the same (as an amusing aside the first sample of handwriting sent from the files was not Swanson's and initially caused a worry). Now anyone who has been involved in the forensic examination of handwriting, and I have, knows that no examiner would ever use photocopies for such purposes. Moreover, the result of his examination was, apparently, a letter to Paul Begg which has never been published.

All very unsatisfactory then, and the claim in the A-Z about the handwriting being confirmed now appeared a tad misleading. No proper examination, apparently, had been done. When I examined the notes first-hand myself I was immediately struck by the fact that a different pencil had been used on the two sets of notes and there were minor variations in the handwriting. But what concerned me more was the fact that these rather obvious differences had raised no comment in 1988 when the notes had been first examined. At no time did I ever accuse anyone of fakery - I merely raised points that, as I see it, should be raised for the reading public and students of the case in order that they may be in full possession of all the facts. For that I have been denigrated.

[Chris]

Chris - you're sitting on an unnecessary fence.

No - I'm suggesting you are placing yourself on an inappropriate pedestal.

I'm suggesting that if you disagree with people on a matter of opinion, it would be appropriate to produce a counter-argument, rather than insulting them and going on and on about the fact you are an academic and they are not.

I notice you don't comment on bad provenance which damns a work such as the Maybrick diary.

Not only did I comment on it - in general terms - but you responded to my comment! There was nothing in your response inconsistent with what I'd said in the first place - that a lack of provenance can incur grave suspicion, but it obviously can't, of itself, prove a document is a fake.

As for the specific document you mentioned, I make it a rule not to discuss it these days. But I'm sure there's at least one person who'd love to discuss it with you till the cows come home.

[fido]

How far has Stewart gone in researching the nature and character of born-again Christians in general, especially in the late Victorian period, and in researching Anderson's positions on ethics and theology, and the accounts of him by other people in this respect, to identify a lack of objectivity in my statement? What does he imagine I meant by "scrupulous" - (a very important adjective in the quotation)? Does he think I see the scruples of an evangelical fundamentalist as generally admirable?

What does Stewart know about sexual serial murderers that displaces the rather inforomed opinions of Dr Luigi Cancrini and John Douglas?

Where has Stewart found evidence of Anderson's offering the public bare-faced porkies without the cover of mental reservation? Where has he found him being deliberately and dishonestly misleading simply to aggrandise his own professional achievements? How does my comment undermine the - surely objective? - conclusion, "Anderson might have been wrong"? Does Stewart concede as much about Littlechild's assertion that Anderson only thought he knew? And if he doesn't, on what study of Littlechild's character and personality does he base this unquestioning respect for his opinion?

Chris - you're sitting on an unnecessary fence. Nobody who has met the Swansons has ever imagined that they could or would have forged the entries. Only Stewart, of all those who have looked at the original volume and other examples of Swanson's memos, notebooks and marginalia, has ever thought that there was anything to suggest that the authorship needed checking. And as the end result of his suspicions and checking, he too concludes that Swanson wrote them. So where is the space for this "possibility" you want to allow for? It is equally possible that Beethoven didn't write the 9th Symphony, or Milton didn't compose Paradie Lost. We've only the words of the publisher and the amanuensis for those ascriptions, and why should anyone trust them? Closer to home, as I've said before, the Littlechild letter might be open to even graver suspicion if one felt that an unscrupulous dealer somewhere along the line reckoned that Sims's correspondence would fetch a better price if it included some new Ripper ideas. I'd call anyone who seriously put forward that notion hopelessly unscholarly and obtuse - but ONLY because I know Stewart and am sure that his judgement is too good for him to be sold such a pup, and it is manifest that this is the opiion of everyone who has met him or studied his work carefully. Such details of public reputation underpin the provenance of viortually everything that is acepted as genuine wih an impeccable provenanceas part of the case for it.
I notice you don't comment on bad provenance which damns a work such as the Maybrick diary.
All the best,
Martin F

[Stewart P Evans]

Obsessed

Why are Stewart and Natalie so obsessed with trying to remove Anderson from the position of "most reliable and plausible witness who was in a position to know what had been discovered"? If my conclusion had been anything other than "Anderson could have been wrong. He was always opinionated," I would understand the need to overthrow it. Given my success in accurately identifying from internal evidence which Times articles Anderson contributed, and Natalie's oversight in suggesting that they included more than one Parnell letter and that Anderson had a hand in that, I feel justified in trusting my own judgement against Natalie's in assessing Major Smith's character, personality and reliability - especially in view of the dry description of him as an entertaining but very unreliable raconteur inscribed by an acquaintance in Scotland Yard's copy of his memoirs.Martin F

I am not 'obsessed with trying to remove Anderson from the position of "most reliable and plausible witness who was in a position to know..."[etc.]' My concern has been to redress the imbalance of information on Anderson (a) caused by the sheer weight of selected Anderson material in your book and Paul Begg's books, that includes the A-Z, and (b) the apparently deliberate omission from said books of information that militates against Anderson such as the R. Harding Davis piece of 1889 and the Daily Chronicle article of 1908.

If no one agreed with me then I think that I should have realised that I was wrong, but all other informed commentators agree with me and I have merely supplied information that was previously missing from readily available works. Indeed, neither of the above, although highly relevant, appears in any edition of the A-Z, ostensibly a reference work, whilst some irrelevant and trite material is included. But I am not the only one who sees a lack of objectivity in the work, most others do too. Much that is opinion is presented as fact. But, as regards Anderson, I do not consider him to be a 'most reliable and plausible witness'. With due respect, Martin, it is your opinion that he is.

Let me illustrate an example of Anderson's patent 'bending' of the facts and a totally misleading statement that appears in his 1910 book -



We know that Anderson knew damned well that the 'Poplar case of December, 1888' [Mylett] was a case of murder, it was found to be so at the inquest, and remains, to this day, on Scotland Yard's books as an unsolved murder. Yet to read his book you wouldn't know this, nor of his 1888/89 shenanigans in trying to get it pronounced as a death from natural causes ending in his failure to do so. Any modern researcher using his book for reference to the case would immediately write it off as not being a murder at all. So what is this? Deception by Anderson, faulty memory, his belief??? You tell me.