Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[Chris]

Frederick Cunliffe Owen interviewed SRA for the 20th March 1910 NYT article which appeared in the Washington Post the following day.

How hard a concept is that to grasp?

The problem is not that the concept is difficult to grasp, but that evidence for the assertion is lacking.

What I really don't understand is why you think that if Cunliffe-Owen had been granted an interview with Anderson, in which he had been given new and exclusive information about Jack the Ripper, he wouldn't have so much as mentioned the fact in the article - and why, on the contrary, you think he would have given his readers the impression that his knowledge of Anderson's opinions had simply been gleaned from published sources.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

Wrong question.

Frederick Cunliffe Owen interviewed SRA for the 20th March 1910 NYT article which also appeared in the Washington Post the following day.

How hard a concept is that to grasp?

Regards,

Simon

PS. Give BG my regards.

[Jeff Leahy]

come on Simon stop evading the question?

Did Anderson Write it or not?

Pirate

Ps Big gun (or the wizard of oz as he is known here) has not been and is not well. Which is why he has not posted for some time.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Without wanting to beat the subject to death, I have laid out my argument for the NYT article being attributable to SRA. In this and another of my articles, I have also cited other examples of SRA being economical with the truth. You, on the other hand, "think this claim is completely wrong . . ." without being able to offer one convincing reason why this is the case.

Be assured that I will be here if the big guns descend from Mount Olympus and come to your aid, but I fear that they, like you, will have nothing in their arsenals except bluster and blind faith.

May you and yours have a safe and warm Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Simon,

You said: "Rob House has been unable to substantiate any of his criticisms of my article."

First of all, you never responded to any of my criticisms, except to suggest (essentially) that I "go back and do some research." If you had responded, then perhaps I might have felt compelled to back up my claims, or argue the point or whatever. That is what debate entails. I am sure I could go through your article and provide more detailed critiques, but I am beginning to realize that it would be pointless to do so. Secondly, I think if you write an article claiming the sorts of rather outlandish claims such as you have done, it is your responsibility, not mine, to substantiate such claims.


You said: "To which you responded, "This is obviously a reference to Aaron Kozminski, and simply acknowledges the fact that Macnaghten was apparently undecided as to which of the two theories was best.""

"Best for what, Rob? It's comforting to know that the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police had the luxury of a choice in such an important matter."

My interpretation is simply that Macnaghten preferred Druitt as a suspect (for whatever reason). However, I assume that he was not very convinced one way or the other as to the identity of the Ripper, and think he probably considered both Druitt and Kozminski as possibile suspects. Although, as he himself said, "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." It is not unusual for different police officers working the same case to have different theories or different preferred suspects, nor is it unusual for a police official to consider more than one suspect as "possibilities." What is so difficult to understand about that?


You said: "Now who's fantasizing, Rob? Last month you'd never even heard of Frederick Cunliffe Owen, so what "fact" is that? Don't you think that SRA might have had a lot to say about someone playing fast and loose with his reputation?"

I am more than happy to give you credit for discovering Cunliffe-Owen as the author of the NYT article. I admit I never heard of Cunliffe-Owen before this week. However I don't see what that has to do with my critique, which is, simply, that you seem to have attributed the entire article to Anderson (either as author, or interviewee, or contributor.) I think this claim is completely wrong, and you still have not responded on that point. I think the article was clearly bungled one way or the other...

As to your question, "Don't you think that SRA might have had a lot to say about someone playing fast and loose with his reputation?" I really have no idea. Maybe he would, maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if Anderson didn't bother to respond because he didn't want to get involved in any type of discourse that would reveal more about the suspect than he cared to disclose. What's he going to do? Write a letter to the Times and say "No he wasn't committed to Broadmoor. He was committed to Colney Hatch." ??


You said: "Oh, and by the way, Rob, before I forget. You berated me with great glee on a detail about Kosminski's relatives. My suggestion is that you take up the matter with one of the pro-Anderson big guns whose book I used to double-check my facts."

I think if you ask the "big guns," they will be happy to admit that I am right, so maybe you should go and do your research.

I admit I am pretty sick of this whole discussion. I don't really see any point in continuing it.

RH

[Jeff Leahy]

Depends on whether we are in the world of Newton or Quantum Mechanics?

Though I must say that I have missed you buggers and its great to be back on Casebook, but I must away back to home, there is work to be done...

Byee xx

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

The word "probably" is hardly definitive.

But, as you say, let's not go around in circles.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Isnt that a little bit like saying all doctors are like Harold Shipman?

What we have are two experts Davis and Totty confirming that it was probably written by Swanson.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2380&page=9

Fot those interested I will post a link to an interesting discussion and post made by he I cant mention, Rob and SPE. Otherwise we just go in more circles.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

A handwriting expert also concluded that Tumblety wrote the "From Hell" letter.

My earth is fat, round and fecund. You and your chums are the ones clutching at outmoded straws.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Michael,

You make an excellent point.

The only question we should be addressing is whether Macnaghten and Anderson lied about the identity of the Ripper because the Metropolitan Police knew nothing but wanted to look vaguely competent, or whether they lied because they were concealing something.

But either way the MM and its spin-offs are still disinformation.

A very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

Thank you my friend, for both the sentiments and the support. And to you also AP.

My best regards

[Jeff Leahy]

Despite the fact that it has been examined by two home Office experts?

Both of whom have verified Martin Fido’s original assessment?

Your looking like a member of the flat earth society…besides, I intend to put this beyond argument as soon as possible in the new year..its the biggest red herring in modern Ripperology and we have already wasted to much time on it.

It was written by Swanson

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

But not written by SRA.

I have a complete brain and think the Swanson Marginalia is phonier than a twenty quid Rolex.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

The MM importance is the name KOSMINSKI which is clearly written, bye SWANSON, in private notes, in the margin of Anderson’s book…the lighter side of my official life.

Clearly Dr Davis exact position requires clarification, but it must seem apparent to anyone with half a brain that the Marginalia is GENUINE.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Michael,

You make an excellent point.

The only question we should be addressing is whether Macnaghten and Anderson lied about the identity of the Ripper because the Metropolitan Police knew nothing but wanted to look vaguely competent, or whether they lied because they were concealing something.

But either way the MM and its spin-offs are still disinformation.

A very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

and a dirt poor Polish Jew who was overtly and obviously mentally challenged.

Really? Surely Rob’s research has demonstrated that Aaron came from a comparatively wealthy Polish Jewish family who ran a relatively successful business? And far from being mentally challenged was almost certainly suffering schizophrenia.

This meant that he would have had periods of comparatively high mental functioning, perhaps even have been comparatively clever.

Pirate

PS Just to quote John Bennett here I gather that most of the 'big guns' have been; “sitting on the fence so long that they have gotten piles”