How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Stewart P Evans]

Suggested

...
But if, as some have suggested, that Anderson concocted his suspect out of thin air, or confused him with Pizer and Sadler, et al, how would Swanson have possessed any details with which to share? Stewart Evans and Jonathan Hainsworth are much smarter than I am, so I don't yet fully understand their ideas regarding How Anderson came to confused a bunch of different people and come up with the man Swanson calls Kosminski. I'm not at all comfortable that the entire thing was a big lie orchestrated by Anderson and Swanson, but I am very comfortable in believing that some measure of exaggeration made it into Anderson's writings.
...
Tom Wescott

Tom, who has suggested, ever, that Anderson concocted his suspect out of thin air? Also no one has suggested that 'the entire thing was a big lie'.

To the contrary, I have always encouraged further research into this genuine suspect, hoping that we may have a book on the Polish Jew/Kosminski theory written by one of the well-read researchers on this particular aspect, such as John Malcolm, Rob House, Chris Phillips or Scott Nelson.

My problem has always been with the 'over-egged' presentation of the theory, Anderson's elevation to near-sainthood and his entrenched claim that it was a 'definitely ascertained fact.'

[Chris]

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?

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.

[Jenni Shelden]

ps re the marginalia and when it was written, it is all highly speculative to assume one knows when it was written, but I think it is fair to say it was definately written between 1888 and 1990! lol

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi again Tom,

and still not really doing anything but supposing, as you say with yourself, I am not an ardent follower of all Anderson theorising, but assuming that you had a book by me and in it I said that a small black cat was the ripper, wouldn't any speculation at the time (eg that Jess the cat out of postman pat was the ripper) point you towards writing in the book - and the ripper was diddles the cat. Whether or not you agree with it - you are merely saying, what Jen is saying here is that Diddles was the Ripper??

Jen

ps i use the neutralising cat theory here so as not to cloud what i am sayig with suspect theory

[Tom_Wescott]

I dont know much about the matter but it was the centenary

It wasn't the centenary, it was many years before the centenary, and newspapers don't buy stories to hold on to for seven or eight years.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

What is important is that we have proof that Mr. Swanson was in possession of the book with the marginalia at a time when Anderson's suspect was assumed to be John Pizer. This leads to really only two possibilities:

1) The marginalia is totally legit.

2) The first part of the marginalia is legit with the words 'Kosminski was the suspect' added by someone at a later date.

But either way, whoever wrote that last line was working from inside information - either Swanson himself or a descendant he told the story to. Either way, the information is as good as if Swanson wrote it himself, so it's a moot point if the last line happened to have been added in more recent times, which really there's not much case for supposing.

And all of this leads me back to my original question - could Swanson's general credibility be seen to lend credibility to Anderson's Polish Jew theory, at least to the extent that Anderson didn't imagine it or make it up?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Good point Tom.I dont know much about the matter but it was the centenary and newspapers would have been aware of that and on the look out for a good story.But yes, maybe it was Mr Swanson who turned their offer down!

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Natalie Severn]

When the News of the World were approached by Swanson"s grandson [s]? I understand they rejected the "story" .The naming of Kosminski in the "end notes" could not have impressed their editors very much at all nor impressed them that this chap had somehow therefore been "named" as Jack the Ripper.They are pretty thorough these big newspapers, employing all sorts of experts to help check things out and they always have legal experts working for them round the clock who may well have picked up on the flimsiness of Swanson"s notes in margins and on end paper -as Jenn points out lots of us make notes in pen"cil in books but it doesnt usually mean much.They would have been sure to note all the gaps too ,from a legal point of view ,of the case Anderson had made in his autobiography against his Polish Jew suspect .I have seen the files in a big newspaper office and a big news agency and they are pretty amazing and seem to cover everything.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jenni, that's more or less what I'm saying. But if, as some have suggested, that Anderson concocted his suspect out of thin air, or confused him with Pizer and Sadler, et al, how would Swanson have possessed any details with which to share? Stewart Evans and Jonathan Hainsworth are much smarter than I am, so I don't yet fully understand their ideas regarding How Anderson came to confused a bunch of different people and come up with the man Swanson calls Kosminski. I'm not at all comfortable that the entire thing was a big lie orchestrated by Anderson and Swanson, but I am very comfortable in believing that some measure of exaggeration made it into Anderson's writings.

Having said all that, I'm not the Anderson/Kosminski scholar that many others around here are.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Tom,
re Swanson. I was wondering earlier, could it simply be the case, that rather than supporting Anderson, Swanson is adding detail to what he knows of his theory?

I am not saying I have looked into this further than that thought, given straight from my mind. It is just, writing in someone else's book, would not definately mean concurance. I mean if I were the note making type and made notes in books, would it be to state my opinion or simply to bolster the text with my own knowledge, for eg - if Swanson were asked about it later - which he may have felt he might be!!

Jenni

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Simon. I'm afraid the issue is not so cut and dried. I have been shown no proof that Anderson concocted or imagined a Polish Jew suspect, but I do have proof that over a period of many years he wrote about this suspect with varying degrees of vigor. I then also have evidence that Donald Swanson was fully aware of this suspect and recorded details about him, of varying veracity. Ergo, at this point I consider Kosminski/Polish Jew a legitimate contemporary suspect, and I would hope you're aware that I do not by any means have a "belief in Anderson's unfailing scrupulosity", nor do I see why that has to be necessary to accept Kosminski as a contemporary suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Belief in Anderson's unfailing scrupulosity lends support to the Polish Jew. Belief in the Polish Jew lends support to Macnaghten's Kosminski. Belief in Macnaghten's Kosminski lends support to the Swanson Marginalia, and belief in the Swanson Marginalia lends support to Anderson's unfailing scrupulosity.

Do the math.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Good point, so let's just take the majority view for the sake of argument and assume that the Swanson marginalia is legit, which I personally think is the case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Well that speculation will no doubt lead us to questions of the marginalia's authenticity and there we go again.