How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Chris]

This is still incorrect. The book passed to Jim Swanson after his aunt died c.1980 but he didn't find the marginalia until much later. The News of the World was approached in 1987, not 1981, as a result of the increasing Ripper coverage as the centenary drew near.

Perhaps Martin Fido was wrong about the date, but there do seem to be two conflicting versions of the story.

The only thing I know for certain is that the death of Alice Julia Swanson was registered at Aylesbury in the final quarter of 1980.

On Colin's point about the books. I learned the hard way that reference to second hand sources on historical subjects can be tenuous. Colin pointed that out to me on the subject of prostitutes some time back, and was correct in doing so.

If one wants to get the "facts" as best as they can, primary sources are the way to go. This whole debate is a good example as it is someone's opinion that is being discussed and that opinion is being whittled down by exposing factual errors of the author/ authors in question.

Many Thanks, Cris!

[Stewart P Evans]

1987

I think in an earlier discussion there was a reference to Martin Fido having given the date 1981 in a tape recording. That would have been the year after the death of Jim Swanson's aunt, Alice Julia.

This is still incorrect. The book passed to Jim Swanson after his aunt died c.1980 but he didn't find the marginalia until much later. The News of the World was approached in 1987, not 1981, as a result of the increasing Ripper coverage as the centenary drew near.

[Hunter]

Hi Caz,

Just a point of grammar in regard to "Nichols's". On a possesive noun that ends in an "s" the apostrophe is all that's necessary- Nichols'

On Colin's point about the books. I learned the hard way that reference to second hand sources on historical subjects can be tenuous. Colin pointed that out to me on the subject of prostitutes some time back, and was correct in doing so.

If one wants to get the "facts" as best as they can, primary sources are the way to go. This whole debate is a good example as it is someone's opinion that is being discussed and that opinion is being whittled down by exposing factual errors of the author/ authors in question.

My point evidently went straight over your head.

Well, you know me!

I'm stupid enough to believe that "maths" can lead us directly to the front door, of the 1888 domicile of 'Jack the Ripper'!

unwanted ripper suspects

Don't put words into my mouth!

Hurry back, Jeff.

'Ripperology' is most dependant upon your contributions; if it is ever to acheive the status of legitimate academic discipline.

Correction: 'Ripperology' is most dependent upon your contributions; if it is ever to achieve the status of legitimate academic discipline.

Now, those are the sort of careless errors, of which we are all 'capable'.

But, sweeping the issue of "Stepney Workhouse" under the rug, by way of a rudimentary sophomoric 'schoolboy solution'; because we are totally incapable of actually addressing the issue? Well ...

[caz]

Hi Colin,

My point evidently went straight over your head.

Why fanny about chucking small custard tarts, if the ammunition is within easy reach and strong enough to demolish a whole book, its author and everything he has ever written?

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

But then, what is?

Love,

Caz
X

So it really can happen to the cream of today’s ripper writers.

Can this?

"The Facts", pg. 168: "They turned back early instead of going hop picking, and reached London on the afternoon of Friday, 28 September. In London Kelly managed to earn 6d. Eddowes took 2d. and told Kelly to use the remaining 4d. to get a bed at Cooney's. Eddowes said that she would get a bed in the casual ward in Shoe Lane. In an interview given to the East London Observer, the superintendent of the casual ward said that Eddowes was well known there, but that this was the first occasion that she had stayed there for some time. Eddowes explained that she had been hopping in the country, but she said, ' "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." "Mind he doesn't murder you too," replied the superintendent jocularly. "Oh, no fear of that," was the remark made by Kate Eddowes as she left.'"

According to Kelly's inquest testimony, he and Eddowes returned to London on Thursday, 27 September, and spent that night together in the casual ward in "Shoe Lane" (City of London Union Casual Ward, Robin Hood Court, Shoe Lane, Parish of St. Andrew Holborn ('Below the Bars'), City of London). Kelly also stated that Eddowes went alone to the casual ward in "Mile End" (Mile End Old Town Casual Ward, Bancroft Road, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town), on the evening of Friday, 28 September. Indeed, it was the casual ward in "Mile End" that was mentioned by the East London Observer, in its seemingly fabled account of an exchange between Eddowes and the casual ward superintendent.

This error has caused tremendous confusion. There have been countless references on these boards, to Eddowes's alleged exchange with the superintendent of the casual ward in "Shoe Lane"; entire threads have been entitled accordingly; and during Andy Aliffe's presentation in Wolverhampton, October 2007, he and his two attendants who were each doing role-plays, made numerous references to the same. Those three in particular, should have referenced "The Sourcebook", instead of "The Facts".

Mei Trow has gone on to bastardize this sequence of events, infinitely more so than Paul Begg initially did. And it is most interesting to note that the bibliography, of his most recent publication, includes "The Facts", but not "The Sourcebook".

Oh, and by the way: There is a massive difference between "31 August" and "1 September"!

Suffice it to say: I would never rely on "The Facts", "The Definitive History", or "The A to Z", as sources of information!

[caz]

Given MANY things that have been brought before all our eyes, from the likes of Stewart, Simon and others, is Robert Anderson an unbiased, truthful and believable commentator? I do not think so.

Hi Phil,

My point here would be that even if Anderson's word can be definitely ascertained to be 100% worthless, it wouldn't mean that the ripper was not, or could not have been, a low class Polish Jew. If Anderson lied, it was about the strength - or rather weakness - of his own certainty.

If he didn't actually have a clue who the ripper might have been, it was an appalling and unforgivable lie to pretend otherwise. But just as he could not have known, without proof, if he was right (and therefore made a bad error of judgement by claiming moral certainty), he could not have known that he was wrong either, without proof of his suspect's innocence or someone else’s guilt. Claiming to be right was very wrong. But it would still be theoretically possible that he was right, if for all the wrong reasons.

If he didn't even have a specific suspect (eg the 'Seaside Special' identification never happened), then it could be said that Anderson lied to make the ripper a low class Polish Jew - again, an appalling thing to do. But nobody can say he was wrong about the ripper being one, and that the truth lay elsewhere, unless they are in a position to identify the real ripper - or to eliminate every last low class Polish Jew in Whitechapel.

Taking Anderson to the cleaners as a commentator (and Fido and Begg by association) may not be doing wonders for the ripper theories that came directly or indirectly from him. But there is no death blow to be delivered via this method if it can’t disprove any of them. If the purpose is purely to put Anderson firmly in his place that’s one thing. But if anyone here is hoping to replace the Anderson-inspired ‘Jewish ripper’ theories with an equally proof-free ‘truth’ of their own (whether it involves an individual suspect, conspiracy or establishment cover-up - or even an entire group of people who simply couldn’t have produced such a killer*), that would be ironic and of doubtful merit, since they would be repeating Anderson’s original sin of arrogantly claiming - or at the very least imagining - that they know something that others don’t.

*

What may work in general for a designated class of people can never be applied to a single individual at all times.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

On a lighter note…

..."naming the Ripper"-----which will always be of interest to readers---especially given that big films starring people like Johnny Depp,continue to be a box office draw.

Well Nats, I don't know how worried you need be about the chances of Johnny Depp ever playing Kosminski the ripper, masturbating furiously and eating bread and butter from the gutter. Depp may be the sexiest ripper ever, but Anderson's choice of suspect has not exactly set ripper world alight with promise, has he?

Your faith in the 'Landord' is touching…

…Not wishing to shake that faith, but giving an example, on what date does he say Nichols was murdered? The following from his last Ripper book -

Page 42 - "The night on which Mary Ann Nichols was to die, 30 August..."

Page 44 - "The night [of Nichol's murder], 31 August..."

Page 61 - "Anderson took charge of the CID on 1 September, the day on which Mary Ann Nichols was found murdered."

Since this is the level of debate to which we should apparently be aspiring…

I agree, this is truly unforgivable! It should of course be: [of Nichols’s murder]

Assuming it was the date error that was intended to leap from the above example, I’d just add that if a certain someone - cough - hadn't done the proofreading for a certain universally popular JtR reference work (one that gets much deserved praise heaped upon it by Martin, Stewart and Paul), Mary Kelly might well have been butchered in print on November 8. So it really can happen to the cream of today’s ripper writers.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

I've never seen it suggested that the News of the World had any doubts about the genuineness of the annotations. And frankly, given that newspaper's reputation, even if there had been doubts I can't imagine they would have prevented publication, if the story had been considered sufficiently newsworthy.

[Natalie Severn]

As I understand it, the News of the World did pay the Swansons for the right to publish the material, but did not use it in the event.

Presumably this was based on a decision about how newsworthy it was. I've never heard it suggested before that it was for legal reasons, and given the fact that the suspect had obviously been dead for a long time I can't imagine what legal reasons there could have been.

My point about the legal team employed by newspapers with a large National circulation such as "The News of the World" is that they are just a part of the back stage work that goes on with any story that may
a] bring about a libel action-in this case not likely to be applicable
but also to check the possibility that the story may
b] prove to be of uncertain provenance.

Given that I thought the approach by the Swansons was made in 1887,just prior to the centenary of the series of Whitechapel Murders of 1888, then such a claim,viz that the identity of "Jack the Ripper" had been known and had been corroborated by Swanson, would,I believe, be of sufficient significance for a lawyer to have been asked his or her opinion on the story"s importance in terms of "naming the Ripper"-----which will always be of interest to readers---especially given that big films starring people like Johnny Depp,continue to be a box office draw.
It would seem to me that The News of the World, for whatever reason, considered the story to lack the certainty of "proving" the Swanson"s belief that the Ripper had been "named" by their grandfather.

[Chris]

Where does the date 1981 come from? Surely it was earlier in 1987, before the Telegraph was approached.

I think in an earlier discussion there was a reference to Martin Fido having given the date 1981 in a tape recording. That would have been the year after the death of Jim Swanson's aunt, Alice Julia.

[Stewart P Evans]

Surely?

Hi Nats. I'm not sure I see your point. What does it matter what story the News of the World were willing to pay money for in 1981, when the Ripper was NOT hot property? And who's to say it wasn't Swanson who turned down their offer, finding it too low?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Where does the date 1981 come from? Surely it was earlier in 1987, before the Telegraph was approached.

[Stewart P Evans]

Jim Swanson

Hi Nats. I'm not sure I see your point. What does it matter what story the News of the World were willing to pay money for in 1981, when the Ripper was NOT hot property? And who's to say it wasn't Swanson who turned down their offer, finding it too low?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Jim Swanson's reasons for publishing the 'marginalia', in his own hand (1988) -