Anderson in NY Times, March 20, 1910

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Simon,

The killer could have been the psychopath Joe Lis, who apparently resided in the same neighborhood with Aaron Kosminski and was about the same age. But Lis(Silver) was cunning and took a boat. Maybe the "asylum" part was just talk. And Kosminski took the rap. Maybe Anderson had it half right.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

That makes three-and-a-half camps.

As it's almost Christmas I'll forgive you.

SRA was about as reliable as an Edsel. They both had loose screws and a few nuts missing.

Happy Christmas to you and yours.

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Merry Christmas to you, Simon, and to all the Casebook wild & crazy gang.

the contract I've just signed should make 2011 very good indeed.

It's about time the Dodgers beefed up their pitching staff.

Seriously, that sounds good. Best wishes,

Roy

ps Come back Jonathan

[robhouse]

Simon,

It is very easy to make vague statements like "contradiction, misdirection and disinformation were his middle names, his stock in trade, as natural to him as breathing," and "He was seriously disturbed [many historians agree on that point], inhabiting an Alice Through the Looking Glass world where up was down and right was wrong". Or "SRA was about as reliable as an Edsel. They both had loose screws and a few nuts missing."

However, I dont suppose you could supply us with some examples to back this stuff up. I know the standard arguments (Mylett, Parnell commission, etc). What evidence, for example, do you have that Anderson was "seriously disturbed"? And who are the "many historians" who agree on that point?

You can just keep repeating this stuff, but I don't see the point, unless you can back it up. I am expecting you will tell me to "check my facts", "do some research", "read the Parnell commission" etc. But as you are the one making these claims, I think it is your responsibility to back them up with facts.

Rob H

[jason_c]

Simon,

It is very easy to make vague statements like "contradiction, misdirection and disinformation were his middle names, his stock in trade, as natural to him as breathing," and "He was seriously disturbed [many historians agree on that point], inhabiting an Alice Through the Looking Glass world where up was down and right was wrong". Or "SRA was about as reliable as an Edsel. They both had loose screws and a few nuts missing."

However, I dont suppose you could supply us with some examples to back this stuff up. I know the standard arguments (Mylett, Parnell commission, etc). What evidence, for example, do you have that Anderson was "seriously disturbed"? And who are the "many historians" who agree on that point?

You can just keep repeating this stuff, but I don't see the point, unless you can back it up. I am expecting you will tell me to "check my facts", "do some research", "read the Parnell commission" etc. But as you are the one making these claims, I think it is your responsibility to back them up with facts.

Rob H

If Fenian Fire by Christy Campbell is not mentioned in the next post I will eat my online hat. Its the new "Gospel" on all things anti Anderson.

[Simon Wood]

Hi jason_c,

Be sure to put plenty of salt, pepper and ketchup on your online hat.

Hi Rob,

In my article I demonstrated how the Macnaghten/Anderson/Swanson "evidence" was shakier than a house of cards, and how in a number of instances SRA proved untrustworthy. Whether or not you care to believe them is your problem. More will be contained in my forthcoming book.

In the meantime you and the pro-Anderson camp might like to have a pow-wow and consider providing one single scintilla of evidence to substantiate SRA's Jew/Polish Jew/Pole story, the integrity of the Swanson marginalia and the worth of Macnaghten's memorandum, because at the moment every one of you is running on nothing but blind faith.

I wish you good luck with that.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff:

You said:

But surely the only expert we know on Anderson and on Victorian Literature, namely Martin Fido, does NOT...

Jeff,Jeff,Jeff...

What does Mr. Fido's or anyone's abilities in Victorian lit have to do with what SRA posits ?

I refer to three cases for your perusal....and review once more what SRA posits...

1. The Mylett Murder in 1888.

2. The Waterloo Bridge Murder in 1857 ( SRA said that "someone" told him that that murder was a "hit" committed by the French secret police ).

3. The West End murder which occurred a few years after the WM...in 1895 I believe... which we went over..over there on the other site...where SRA just "knew" the man he interrogated was guilty....and claimed it was a "moral certainty" the guy was guilty. The courts felt otherwise.

I don’t know Howard I’m not an expert.

However the only expert on the subject of SRA is Martin Fido. Which is why he is quoted by Paul Begg.

I guess it has something to do with the fact that Martin Studies this stuff and lecturers at University on the subject. Its what he does for a living. Also that he has read the works of SRA and is able to place it in context. Add to that his research and books.

Clearly his expert opinion is that SRA would not have lied about the identity of the Ripper.

Unfortunately us lesser mortals, as Mei Trow points out on the Conference DVD, can only be guided by what experts tell us…

Which is why we put such score in people like Martin and Dr Davis..I guess their testimony would stand up in 'court'…it is however qualified opinion not gosspel.

Of course I’m aware of points 1 , 2 and 3…

However the bottom line is whether SRA would have made up the comment ‘Ascertained Fact” and I will continue to bow to MF’s learned view on the subject.

The third way is of course to sit on the fence, we can have respect for those that do, however this will be the main topic of Ripper discussion over the coming year..fence or no fence

Like Richard Jones “of that I’m certain”

Pirate Jack

[Supe]

Simon,

SRA was about as reliable as an Edsel. They both had loose screws and a few nuts missing

In fact, the Edsel was a well-constructed car with a lower than normal rate of reported mechanical defects for that time. The reason it sold poorly (thus becoming the butt of jokes) was two-fold. For one, in an era when styling over substance was king (and not queen) its novel approach to design (a vulval front end among other things) found few takers. Secondly, it failed to establish a definite market niche in the already crowded FoMoCo product line.

But, if SRA was as a reliable as the Edsel, he was quite reliable. I suggest you find a new analogy.

Don.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Don,

Who am I to argue?

SRA was as reliable as an Austin Allegro. Now there really was a piece of automotive crap. These turkeys didn't even roll off the assembly line with the requisite number of nuts and screws. You were lucky if you got one with four wheels.

And Pirate Jack—

You really are such a good-hearted sucker. There's a preacher somewhere waiting just for you. And he is going to cream your wallet.

" . . . the only expert on the subject of SRA is Martin Fido. Which is why he is quoted by Paul Begg." Martin "has read the works of SRA and is able to place it in context".

Whoop de doo! So have I. It sure beats sleeping tablets.

In 1988 Martin, Keith, Paul and I gave Ripper seminars in Whitechapel. I love them all and treasure the memory. But funnily enough I don't remember you.

Please explain why Martin's "expert opinion" means that SRA didn't lie about the identity of the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

I didn’t say that Simon. I said that martin Fido was an expert in Victorian Literature, had studied SRA’s writing, largely on theology, and formed the opinion that on the subject of Jack the Ripper SRA would NOT have lied.

As he is a human being and not a computer, he is as subject to error as any other expert in their particular field.

My point was simply that those of us who are not experts (and I’m not completely sure what qualification that requires) are bound to add extra weight to their opinions, and are justified in quoting them when referencing the subject they specialize in.

Of course I’m aware that you know Martin , Paul and Keith well. This debate has indeed been going for many years. The point I was making is that for a number of years Ripperology has been sidelined by lesser debates from Maybrick and Sickert to last years Andrew Cook and the recent morgue Attendant, And I’m hoping this years debate wont be high-jacked by a ‘stack of Victorian porn’….

My personal opinion is that SRA genuinely believed that the identity of JtR was known…Of course whether he was right or not is another question altogether. And clearly it would be foolish not to appreciate the complex nature of the pro’s and con’s and fore and againsts…

Paul Begg made an interesting observation that Ripperology is like a ladder and at some point you have to except the bottom runs will hold your weight to test the runs above them…

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pirate,

Well at least we agree on one thing: Anderson knew the answer to the WM [he just wasn't telling anyone]. I won't say he knew the identity of JtR because there was no such person, and it is foolish of us to believe there ever was.

I understand Paul's ladder analogy, but if the bottom rungs are Anderson, Macnaghten and the frankly suspect Swanson marginalia then it is not a ladder I would ever care to scale. Far better to start from scratch and build a better ladder.

As Samuel Goldwyn once said, "Gentlemen, include me out".

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm firmally with Simon in regard to SRA and his questionable veracity; and I dislike the word 'expert' even more than that word 'ripperologist'.
It is often the 'experts', especially in regard to history, that lead us badly astray.
Personally I would question SRA's veracity and honesty because of the incident in his younger days where he was accused by two respectable ladies of acting 'indecently' towards them on a train.
We never hear of this peculiar incident from the 'experts', no more than we hear of Tumblety's arrest in the UK on manslaughter charges by those 'experts' concerned... simply because the two incidents do not tally with the 'experts' distorted and manipulated view of 'history'.
History is best left to the honesty of the common man in his search for a common truth, rather than in the highly questionable hands of 'experts'.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Captain

I trust that you are on the mend from this year’s hospital trip..

Like you I share your skepticism on ‘experts’, indeed in authority figures in general. Something you may have noticed has gotten me into trouble in the past.

Thank God I ignored the advice of my mother’s doctor the week before last and we got her to hospital when we did. However I am now very much in the hands of ‘experts’ who clearly understand serious illness better than I do. And thank god they do. We have to trust them every time we get on a plane or buy a new computer!

As for ‘experts in the area of History, well in my field I wouldn’t get far without them, they are my bread and butter, I’m not a writer, author or researcher like you guys. (Actually I was going to ask you if you would be interested in giving me some ‘expert’ time on the Hammersmith murders?)

My old boss used to say “an expert' is anyone who has read more than two books and is willing to sign a release form for less than a hundred quid” that was of course in the glory days when TV companies still had budgets…and its not something I subscribe to…one has a duty to get the best and most up to date information that one can, and asking the right questions of the right experts, well that’s where I am.

Lets hope the New Year brings many a happy hour on the subject of SRA and many difficult questions. I’m certain that it would bring a smile to his face..

Merry Xmas all

Pirate

[robhouse]

"In my article I demonstrated how the Macnaghten/Anderson/Swanson "evidence" was shakier than a house of cards, and how in a number of instances SRA proved untrustworthy. Whether or not you care to believe them is your problem.

In the meantime you and the pro-Anderson camp might like to have a pow-wow and consider providing one single scintilla of evidence to substantiate SRA's Jew/Polish Jew/Pole story, the integrity of the Swanson marginalia and the worth of Macnaghten's memorandum, because at the moment every one of you is running on nothing but blind faith."

Yes Simon,

You are right. How foolish of me to expect that you could answer a single one of the criticisms I pointed out in my post. I should of course accept whatever you say, since obviously the more people declare that Anderson was "seriously disturbed" I guess the more it must be true. Of course there never was a JTR... what an absurd idea. I bow to your much greater insights.

RH

[The Good Michael]

I've been reading this thread, or catching up on it the past hour or so. I am somewhat dismayed at all the Anti-SRA stuff without a thread of evidence. There is complete flippancy on the part of some who seem to have an "Oh, everyone knows about Anderson" attitude as if we who have never spent time in the man's company are not privy to all the secrets the Aunties (antis) know about him. Rob has proceeded in a forthright manner, to criticize many points in Simon's arguments and article, and the only rebuttal thus far has been a smug suggestion to do some homework on the subject. Very pleasant stuff, eh? There are only a few possibilities here. 1) Anderson was telling what he believed to be the truth; 2) Anderson was lying to cover up something; 3) Anderson hated Jews.

If the Aunties care to go into detail on points 2 and 3, with corroborated evidence and documentation, we'd all love to read what they have to say. If they want to throw out conspiracy theories... well, that kind of crap is what makes this whole topic often ridiculous.

I'd like to add to the Aunties in my best wish for Christmas harmony, ... Humbug!

Cheers,

Mike