How Are The Mighty Fallen

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.'

[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) -

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[Septic Blue]

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]

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

[Septic Blue]

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 ...