Anderson - More Questions Than Answers

I have recently obtained a copy of Sir Robert Andersons autobiography, The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

It is easily the best copy I have seen out of the three or four that have passed through my hands. The pages are bright and unmarked leaving me to believe it hasn’t even been read.
If anyone is interested in this very collectable Ripper related book please pm me with an offer.

Best post aside from Stewarts, nice find Bob. You may hear from me privately.

Cheers mate

[Bob Hinton]

The Lighter Side etc

I have recently obtained a copy of Sir Robert Andersons autobiography, The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

It is easily the best copy I have seen out of the three or four that have passed through my hands. The pages are bright and unmarked leaving me to believe it hasn’t even been read.
If anyone is interested in this very collectable Ripper related book please pm me with an offer.

[Stewart P Evans]

A Joke

I do not intend to respond further, after this, on this sorry thread.

First off, what has an IP address got to do with another party feeding 'Pirate' with his answers? It has become almost a joke with many, including several who don't actually post here, recognising when someone else is feeding him with his answers. So, deny it all he likes, I doubt that many will believe him, given the remarkable improvement in grammar, spelling, style of writing and points that he would never even have known about or thought of. Had it not been the case that many think the same, then perhaps I might have thought that I was being paranoid.

I suggest that 'Pirate' goes back a few years to the original thread, on these boards, where I revealed the problems with the writing. Keith Skinner was with me when I noticed the differences in the annotations and I remarked on them at that time, in 2000. This isn't a criminal investigation and what anyone might choose to do, or not, is down to the individual. I communicated my concerns to other Ripper authorities (not Fido and Begg, Keith was aware) as I have described.

Those who should have been most concerned were the ones, over the years, who had set much store on the 'marginalia' and who base much of their Ripper theorising on it. But, I repeat, my concern wasn't that it was faked, it was that there were these definite physical anomalies that had never been revealed and addressed, hence as soon as I was able to state as much I did so, with the aforementioned results.

And again, here, we see see 'Pirate' putting words into my mouth. He says, "But surely you have stated that you were the person who spotted the differences and worries about the authenticity. Does that not lay some responsibility on you to resolve the situation?" Where have I said that I 'had worries about the authenticity'? I am sick and tired of pointing out what concerned me - physical anomalies - I had made no allegations regarding Jim Swanson, but I knew that there would probably be some who would suggest it. And, as I have explained, that is the reason I did not publicly mention it until after he had passed away.

It seems obvious that the whole of 'Ripperworld' believed for many years that the 'marginalia' was faultless and beyond questioning. It was the received wisdom and, apart from Paul Harrison, who was quickly refuted, no one had the temerity to suggest otherwise. Indeed, very, very few had ever seen the original which was in private hands.

I have no disagreement with anyone wanting to get to the truth, that's what I'm all about, as those who know me will attest. Indeed, that is what this is all about. I don't need someone who has a minimal and confused grasp of the facts telling me what to do. And 'Pirate' has been sneering and denigrating and a mere look back through this thread will show how ridiculous he has been (again). If there has been 'failure' or 'error' by anyone I am sure that they are aware of it. I certainly am when I make a mistake.

The one person who has introduced the insinuation of 'deception', anywhere on this thread, is 'Pirate' - a mere look back will show that.

[Jeff Leahy]

This mouthpiece for A. N. Other really is a piece of work isn't he?

Firstly let me make it absolutely clear that I am not a mouth piece for absolutely anyone or anybody. If Admin wishes to check my account they will discover that all my posts come from the same IP address and any of you are welcome to come around and check my mail box. I express my own opinions and speak from the heart.

As I have pointed out Keith was with me when I found the anomalies in the marginalia and I pointed them out at that time. Jim Swanson was the contact of Keith and not mine. I did tell various leading Ripper authorities at the time and the general consensus was that to reveal the facts at that time would inevitably lead to suggestions of forgery (which it did when it was revealed) and that I couldn't possibly hurt Jim Swanson. But, needless to say, I was far from being the only one who knew.

Stewart, you simply did not make it clear that you had raised your concerns in private, with those involved. Indeed, this statement:

“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.”

Sounds to me as if you choose a public message board to address your fears. Which, if the case, would strike me as rather odd.

As I have explained even when it did become public knowledge after Jim's passing, those who endow the 'marginalia' with such great significance still, themselves, did nothing about it. There certainly was no onus on me to do anything other than what I did. And others agreed with that.

But surely you have stated that you were the person who spotted the differences and had worries about the authenticity. Does that not lay some responsibility on you to resolve the situation?

I’m not making any accusations against you Stewart, as I have no way of knowing what private correspondence was passed between yourself Keith, Paul and Martin. But surely resolving the matter at its earliest opportunity would be important. At that time you would have had no way of knowing Dr Davis final examination would vindicate Jim Swanson. If the marginalia had proved to have been forged or tampered with, surely Jim Swanson being still alive to question would have been very important?

Of course, it is obvious there are those who would have been happy to see nothing done about it and the status quo remain as to the 'marginalia.'

Again this statement appears to me totally loaded but perhaps it’s now me being paranoid. How could anyone not want the FACTS or TRUTH about anything? And it seems to me that no status quo has been broken as hand writing analysis is not and has never been an exact science.

The marginalia always was (and unless reexamined in greater detail and new revelations come to light about it) always will be ‘Probably written by Swanson’.

And on a personal note Stewart I find your personal comments about me being a ‘piece of work’ because I have had the courage to ask some awkward questions about your agenda, highly hypocritical. It is precisely because I feel that the TRUTH is so important that I feel sometimes difficult questions need to be asked and answers clarified.

I hope it is obvious to you and everybody else that when I used the ‘Deception’ word that I did not think you really thought that? However I did think from your posts that you were implying some ‘FAILOR’ or ‘ERROR’ of judgment by Paul or Martin, if I have miss read that then I apologies, but that’s what I felt you were implying.

However it seems to me that those involved did there best and acted as they saw fit and proper at the time. As you poo poo’d me when I mentioned ‘the benefit of hindsight’ before I will simply add that there appears to me to have been a collective responsibility which luckily resolved itself positively.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Inevitable

...
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.
...
Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thank you for the support Tom. However, it was inevitable that a certain person would try to turn things around and make me the one in the wrong. It was expected and now all can see it happening. From private contact that has been made I know that many others know what is happening and fully support me.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pointed Out

This mouthpiece for A. N. Other really is a piece of work isn't he?

As I have pointed out Keith was with me when I found the anomalies in the marginalia and I pointed them out at that time. Jim Swanson was the contact of Keith and not mine. I did tell various leading Ripper authorities at the time and the general consensus was that to reveal the facts at that time would inevitably lead to suggestions of fakery (which it did when it was revealed) and that I couldn't possibly hurt Jim Swanson. But, needless to say, I was far from being the only one who knew.

As I have explained even when it did become public knowledge after Jim's passing, those who endow the 'marginalia' with such great significance still, themselves, did nothing about it. There certainly was no onus on me to do anything other than what I did. And others agreed with that. In fact Martin Fido's advice, on these boards, was to say no more as I was risking libel action.

Of course, it is obvious there are those who would have been happy to see nothing done about it and the status quo remain as to the 'marginalia.'

[The Grave Maurice]

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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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]

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

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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.