Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[Stewart P Evans]

Really?

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

Oh, really? All a bit lost on me then as I lack scholarly training and any real knowledge of Milton or Beethoven.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fbi

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.
All the best,
MNartin F

I have a very good idea of how Anderson's mind worked and in the 'school of life' I would venture to suggest that I have seen more than the average person and am as well equipped as you in making an evaluation of how Anderson's mind worked. And I'm not blinkered. A few years back we had the head of the FBI serial murder unit spend a weekend with us and we discussed the case. He was a lot more complimentary about me than you are. But, I guess, that is to be expected.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pat on the Back

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.)
MNartin F

Squirm and wriggle all you like Martin, it's there in black and white and we can all read. You do enjoy those pats on the back don't you, even if you give them to yourself - is that an 'unmentionable vice'?

[Stewart P Evans]

1976

(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.)MNartin F

Looks like Stephen Knight got there 11 years before you, this from his 1976 book Jack the Ripper the Final Solution -

[Stewart P Evans]

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

For those who don't know of John Douglas and Dr Luigi Cancrini they are a couple of people who agree with Martin's general reasoning over the type of person the Ripper was.

[Chris]

We're talkjing about scholarship ...

Well, you are certainly talking a lot about "scholarship".

But in my experience of academics, the ones who talk longest and loudest about their own expertise are usually the ones least worth listening to. The real experts have the self-confidence to argue the case on its merits, rather than trying to intimidate others by constant reference to their own supposed scholarly superiority.

[fido]

Who are these academics whose opinions you have experienced, Chris? What were they uttering about anad who did you find offered better opinions?

For those who don't know who John Douglas and Luigi Cancrini are, the former was head of the FBI Psychological Profiling unit (actually known as Criminal Identification Analysis) and like his predecessor, the section's founder Robert Ressler, he travelled all over America interviewing convicted serial killers to establish, if possible, just what sort of people they were,a nd whether any common psychological characteristyics could be observed. He also developed great expertise in drawing conclusions from scenes of crimes, and from any original writing by criminals that could be analysed. Luigi Cancrini was Professor of Forensic Psychoogy at the University of Bologna who made a careful study of the Ripper case, and concluded that the suppressed rage and violence in this man would ultimately lead him to suicide. You may find a number of other people who agree with me in one way or another, but whose qualifications are unknown to me, on the David Cohen board. I cited these two whose expertise seems to me to go beyond "lessons from the university of life".

Actually it was Stephen Knight's blank entry that led me to start the long slow pursuit of this woman. I'd forgotten that he gave the name Rose Mylett, but as Stewart well knows, Knight, if he did know anything about her, neither put it in his book nor kept any notes on her that have survived.

Pat on the back - squirm - wriggle? Stewart, Stewart - I see why you feared fireworks in a podcast. Witout a leg to stand on in argument you have to resort to mildly offensive language.

Sorry, Stewart, you are claiming to utter as a historian. The school of life doesn't get you anywhere at all in understanding personalities from a different cultural background until you have absorbed that background and can determine the extent to which it will make the person under consideration different from those you have met in your own time and place. You haven't done this, ergo I cannot recommend anyone to pay much attention to your opinions about the nature of Anderson's truthfulness.

And on Milton and Beethjoven, I imagine you're playing dumb to escape an argumenet you've lost. Let's put it simply. When yu hear of aserious newbie asking whether the Swanson marginalia could have been forged, your honest answer should be, "Certainly not. I wondered about that too, and full and thorough investigation has shown that they are genuine." To suggest that there is a doubt worth letting anyone spend time trying to prove they are fake or tampered with is as much use as suggesting a scholarly examination of the genuine nature of a well estabished classic whose ascription is not doubted.
All the best,

Martin F

[Chris]

Who are these academics whose opinions you have experienced, Chris?

The ones I came into contact with when I was an academic myself, naturally.

[Stewart P Evans]

Objectivity

So why the ceaseless attempt to say that Paul Begg and I are biassed, partisan, and incpable of reading the evidence? I have the sneaking suspicion that it's because our accusers know that the evidence for giving Anderson's testimony the highest historical priority is in fact so strong that it weakens other fields they might wish to pursue.
All the best,
Martin F

There is no 'ceaseless attempt' it is merely, as I have stated, getting the balance right and presenting and even-handed picture. Your 'sneaking suspicion' is unfounded and I have no 'other fields that I wish to pursue.'

Any Ripper author is at his weakest when trying to prove a case for his chosen suspect. Ergo it is child's play to tear apart any theory - for every theory lacks hard evidence and is, ultimately, beyond proving. Ripper critics are at their best when attacking a suspect-based theory - for at the core of any such theory is mere opinion, hypothesis and personal interpretation. This much must be obvious and we therefore see Martin attacked on his Cohen theory, Phil Sugden attacked over suggesting Chapman as the best Ripper and me attacked over my Tumblety writings. It's all very easy to do.

But I have not carried out any Tumblety research since the mid 1990s and have not published anything on him since my first book. True I might respond when I perceive erroneous or false reasoning in attacks on the theory, but I know very well that the identity of the Ripper cannot be proved and I have no plans to pursue another suspect-based book. I never try to push Tumblety onto anyone and I am well aware of all the contra-arguments.

I was reading about this subject as early as 1961 and researching the case from the mid-1960s. Druitt (from 1965) and Kosminski (from 1988) were my preferred suspects. As the years went by I learnt more and more and became acquainted with the leading authors and researchers. I did not acquire the Littlechild letter until 1993. So for the first 32 years of my Ripper interest I had never heard of Tumblety. Since writing the book in 1994/5 and updating it in 1996 I have done no research on Tumblety nor have I published on him.

No suspect-based book can be without bias, subjectivity and selective use of press reports. That said there is no invention or false information in the book, although, obviously, our opinions, interpretation and hypotheses are open to challenge. But our Tumblety publication is now 12 years in the past and all my books since are objective reference works with no suspect bias. And since then research has advanced a long way and much more is being found with the availability of digital searching.

My Ripper research since 1996 has been objective, without bias, and unhindered by any agenda. Should I find any new information on Anderson I would reveal it whether or not it supported his honesty or otherwise. Likewise should I find information supporting the idea of Kosminski as the Ripper I would share that also. Honesty must also be a high priority of any Ripper historian as well as objectivity.