Attacks Real and Perceived

[Stewart P Evans]

I have started this thread in order for those interested to discuss the article by John Malcolm, in the latest issue The Casebook Examiner, bearing the title 'The Complete Mystery of Jack the Ripper and Sir Robert Anderson's Definitely Ascertained Flaws.'

If nothing else, some of Sir Robert Robert Anderson's flaws certainly are 'definitely ascertained'. The article has, as was expected, already drawn some responses, including my own. However, I doubt that Philip Sugden will be responding as he probably will never see this article. As such I view this as an unfortunate attack on this respected author especially when such derogatory phrases [inter alia] as suggesting he 'incautiously speculates as to the origins of Anderson's theory'; 'those who staunchly deny any possibility of this "definitely ascertained fact" are stuttering and constipated.'; [of Sugden on 'the original Jack the Ripper letter'] 'Again, how would he know that this was not true? This is more akin to Pamela Ball's Jack the Ripper: A Psychic Investigation than to a scholarly and objective historian.'; 'Wow, this is definitely a head-first plunge into "La-La Land".' [a very scholarly turn of phrase there John]; "the campaign being waged against Anderson seems misguided'; 'But if we were all to blindly accept Robert Anderson at his word, think of how quickly the novelty of Jack the Ripper would fragment into a sad lot of lost business opportunities and a befuddled field of "experts," left holding their empty sacks of integrity.' (Just what are you saying or suggesting here then John?).

John's internalised belief is summed up when he states, "...there is simply no tangible evidence that has come to light that even strongly suggests that Sir Robert was wrong." Really? I must be labouring under a false impression. Certain phrases and ideas in the article clearly show where John derives his beliefs from - it's a pity that those sources are so biased. More anon.

[Stewart P Evans]

Just a minute...

Just a minute, let me put down my empty sack of integrity and get to the business in hand. Please excuse any stuttering I may be guilty of as I'm feeling rather constipated.

Before anything else is said the simple fact exists that the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' could not be a 'definitely ascertained fact' in the eyes of the police. The record shows that no one witnessed the commission of a murder - ergo the murderer was not seen at work and consequently it would be impossible to definitely establish his guilt in this way. Similarly it cannot be stated with any certainly that 'the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him...'.

So much hinges on this alleged identification that those who promote Anderson and his theory, for theory is all it is, have to bolster it with claims such as John does in this piece, "There must have been other or even 'many circs' surrounding this suspect to support the supposed contention that the murderer had been discovered." Hmm, I've heard that one before, now where did I hear it? Oh, I remember, Paul Begg said it.

But this has to be qualified by Macnaghten's specific statement that "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer..." and "no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one." All these factors simply cannot be ignored or cast aside in the blind belief that Anderson was correct and wouldn't lie so it doesn't matter that he did not produce one atom of evidence to support his claim.

I note that John unquestioningly accepts the Begg mantra that 'there was a witness and there was an identification', as described by Anderson and elaborated upon in the Swanson annotations. But all these arguments have been trailed out before and some pretty dodgy reasoning has been used in an effort to bolster Anderson. What is a singular fact is that we are asked to believe that such an identification took place and that it was positive but not acted upon as the witness refused to testify. Such an important and relevant event, however, warrants no mention in all of the surviving general reports on the murders and other than Anderson, and his beloved servant Swanson, we have no mention whatsoever of it by any other police officer, either at the time or in subsequent writings. In fact, quite the contrary.

But all we contrary and wrong-headed naysayers are involved in a conspiracy to denigrate Anderson, hide the truth in order to protect our future business interests in this unsolved mystery, and to pervert the truth. What I find rather interesting is that the only historical evidence of any attempted identification of 'Jack the Ripper' in the requisite period is the failed identification of Sadler, by a Jewish witness, as the Mitre Square killer mere days after the incarceration of Kosminski. Now there is a singular coincidence.

[Ally]

The article has, as was expected, already drawn some responses, including my own. However, I doubt that Philip Sugden will be responding as he probably will never see this article. As such I view this as an unfortunate attack on this respected author

I disagree. The idea that criticism is only valid if the author sees it and anything else is an attack is not logical. If that were in fact the case, then every review of every movie/ novel/painting in every newspaper in the world would be considered an unfortunate attack, as it is not likely that the director/author/painter could possibly see them all.

The only thing that matters is are the criticisms valid ones. And that is of course a matter for debate by all.

[Stewart P Evans]

Criticism

I disagree. The idea that criticism is only valid if the author sees it and anything else is an attack is not logical. If that were in fact the case, then every review of every movie/ novel/painting in every newspaper in the world would be considered an unfortunate attack, as it is not likely that the director/author/painter could possibly see them all.
The only thing that matters is are the criticisms valid ones. And that is of course a matter for debate by all.

Criticism is fine and to be expected if anyone writes a book. It is the nature of that criticism that I disagree with here. I do not agree with all of Sugden's opinions, even in this instance for that matter. But it is the way in which this article has been written that it becomes more of an attack than valid and fair criticism, you can almost taste John's pique and frustration. That is what is unfortunate. But, of course, anyone and everyone is at liberty to disagree with me if they so wish.

[John Malcolm]

Stewart,
Unfortunately, I'm off to work and won't be back until late, but I will address your comments when I get home. It was inevitable that you would find the article disagreeable and I certainly cannot argue with many of the issues that you raise. That said, I will continue as soon as I can.

[bolo]

Hi Stewart, John, all,

Criticism is fine and to be expected if anyone writes a book. It is the nature of that criticism that I disagree with here. I do not agree with all of Sugden's opinions, even in this instance for that matter. But it is the way in which this article has been written that it becomes more of an attack than valid and fair criticism, you can almost taste John's pique and frustration. That is what is unfortunate. But, of course, anyone and everyone is at liberty to disagree with me if they so wish.

having read John's contribution, I have to agree with you here. It's a pity that the tone of the article will probably lead to more debates than its contents, especially in light of the possible value of some of the points presented in it.

Regards,

Boris

[Natalie Severn]

One thing I would really like explained to me is this: If Sir Robert Anderson and Sir Melville Macnaghten , both Scotland Yard Chiefs of Police, were talking about the same "Polish Jew", Aaron Kosminski, how come Macnaghten had him in the loony bin in March 1889 ? Particularly since we know for certain Aaron Kosminski was out and about walking and whistling his dog in Cheapside in November 1889---a full year after the murders were committed?
Swanson seems just as muddle headed over the actual facts: He has Kosminski buried and dug up again!
viz:
"In a very short time [ie shortly after 7th February 1891, the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, was sent to Stepney workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards !

Remarkable stuff! So Kosminski died "shortly after" being sent to Colney Hatch?
Particularly remarkable since he entered "Colney Hatch" on 7th February 1891 and died on 24th March 1919!

Oh---I know there are a thousand explanations for what these muddle headed folk said about Aaron Kosminski -but we talk here of a mentally ill man ,with no [police] record of violence who was posthumously accused of being Jack the Ripper.To have erred so badly is unforgiveable---in my opinion.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon, Stewart, Nats, all,

Attacks real and percieved...hmmm. Well, if bringing forth hitherto little known information by the general public on Anderson, whether good or bad, is deemed to be in some way detremental to the idea that Anderson could have lied, embellished or been dishonest, then it is only because there is very little that isn't from the secular religious movements at the time that make Anderson out to be as clean as a whistle.

What has been found, from many contemporary sources, is that the general regard for the man is a poor one. I have to say in the interests of fairness that I, and many others I believe, have searched left right and centre for quotes about this man that are good. It seems it is overwheming, that the greater majority of comments about the man are negative, and show a thread running through them. "Fairy tales" is indeed the word I was looking for.

I allow myself to quote T.P.O'Connor, who in an attack in the House, said the following of him, amongst much much more, and deliberately highlighted his speech with reference to his infamous autobiography, from 21st April 1910.
O'Connor used the example of Anderson to get a motion passed regarding the monies paid to individual policemen and state handouts. Although he failed to get Anderson's own pension amount changed, the vote was 232 for, 111 against. O'Connor said of Anderson...

"I attack his pension because I think he has violated the traditions of the high position he held and of the service to which he belonged; because he has been guilty of gross acts of official indiscretion; because he has made many statements which are inaccurate and misleading, and calculated to interfere with the course of justice; but, above all, I ask for the destruction of his pension because I regard him as the symbol and outcome, and as the standard-bearer of a bad and false and rotten system."

"....Sir R. Anderson is an Irishman and a Unionist....He has the most violent political prejudices. These prejudices are so strong, and I am sure so honest, that they blind him very often to all the difference between what is right and what is wrong in the conduct of his fellow-creatures, and often to his own attitude towards those who have the misfortune to differ from him. But when one reads his history described by himself, one is not surprised at that."

"You will find in all his writings and all his proceedings he is constantly haunted and beset and obsessed by what I may call the policeman's spirit, and above all the secret service spirit."

"In this book he gives perhaps the most eloquent proof of his prejudices and prepossessions. This book has many villains; it has only one hero—or, perhaps, I should say it has many villains but only two heroes. One of the heroes of the book is Sir R. Anderson, and his achievements lose nothing in the telling. The other hero is Major Le Caron. But there are many villains, some of whom are sitting round me."

(my emphasis)

Now this tells me much. The whole speech was an Anti-Anderson swipe from start to finish. And it was this speech, which decided one side of the vote or not. Churchill spoke against the motion.

232 people voted for, based on what they had heard. They agreed with the motion. They obviously must have been greatly influenced by or have agreed with the examples given about the man.

Those examples are shocking "inaccurate misleading statements... interefere with the course of justice... secret service spirit"...

The man was clearly a law unto himself. The combination of those three lines above, tell me more of his writings in his biography than of the value of his saying he was telling the truth. It seems to be a well-known fact at the time that the man was not what he claimed to be. Not by a long chalk.

It really is difficult to argue against this kind of statement, when all the evidence that is brought forward about the man is weighed up. It seems, overwhelming. Please Jon, anyone, please, do supply something to counter these strong accusations and feelings that his political contempories had for him. In 1910. I really would welcome them. We all would!

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Just in case...

Just in case anyone is wondering, I consider John Malcolm to be a friend and I like him a lot. I also have great respect for the work he has done and the fine works he has written. I am here taking issue with a stand he is making that I consider to be actually fired by frustration.

At the very beginning of his article he quotes Anderson and this quote indicates the view that John has of the pro and con Anderson debate. He sees it as totally polarised and allowing for no middle ground. You either accept that Anderson's word is the best basis for research into the possible identity of Jack the Ripper or you see Anderson as totally wrong, for whatever reason, and reject all he said in its entirety. Need I point out again that it is the perceived 'anti-Andersonites' who have provided more information on Anderson and his theory, both relevant and tangential, than any of the so-called 'pro-Anderson scholars'. Also, in general, 'anti-Anderson theory' writers have been fairer in their presentation of Anderson material than some 'pro-Anderson theory' writers who have been selective and omitted relevant information in the past.

Personally I keep an open mind and present everything I find on Anderson - pro or con. Thus I don't see him as a habitual liar or always prevaricating. I see him as a human being with all the faults that go with that as well as the plus points. I do not regard him as the rock solid source that some do.

[The Good Michael]

Phil,

Your quotes from O'connor show someone with a political agenda speaking out against an opponent. It isn't evidence of anything. It is easy to refute as political wind.

Getting to John's article, what stands out to me, and what needs to be questioned from Sugden is the word choices when looking for holes in the Kosminski theory. The writing is much like what a used car salesman would use in trying to encourage a sale. "You look like a smart guy. You understand investments. This isn't a vehicle. It's an investment. A smart man would see that." So, if I don't buy the car, I'm retarded. That's the language that's presented in the quotes John uses, that we would be stupid, after Sugden's expose, to continue on the Kosminski path, when "I have a better car for you over here."

That isn't limited to Sugden. The device is also used with respect to the character assassins of Anderson. And just to let you know where I stand, anyone who has written so many religious articles is always suspect in my book, but I didn't know that man. I can't say because I don't like something about him, that he was part of a secret cabal to hush up the truth behind the Whitechapel murders.

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

Fair comments all. I will only add that 231 people agreed with him. politically or not. That is for the individual to surmise over as to why. I surmise my way, you surmise your way. You could be right, I could be, we just don't know, but my opinion is just an opinion, as is yours. None can know for certain why 232 people voted.
"Secret cabal to hush up the truth behind the Whitechapel murders" is your suggestion. Not mine. I have said that in my opinion he had other important agendae. I have also suggested that Anderson may have used the goings on as a smokescreen. Those Mike, are my words. You may quote those at any time, should you so wish. For it is the difference in a conspiracy (secret cabal) and a smokescreen (other agendae), in my personal opinion and personal interpretation of the language.

Hope you are well.

best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Phil.

You know my words are directed to an underlying and general concept and not to you in particular... aside from the opening statement.

Cheers,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

Of course. Not taken that way either. Just wanted to make sure others didn't misunderstand my position, as we are read globally by many. One wouldn't want to be misunderstood, would one? LOL

best wishes

Phil

[John Malcolm]

Stewart, Ally, Boris, Natalie, Phil, Mike,
First off, thanks for engaging in discussion regarding the turd I dropped on you all; Stewart summed it up dead-bang with "John's pique and frustration", which, if you can taste, would at very least give me the satisfaction of knowing that it is being acknowledged. I think we would all be better served if we were to agree to disagree about the "Polish Jew Theory" and Anderson's "definitely ascertained fact". From everything we know up to this point, I think the "facts" only push us into a corner: hung jury, deadlock, stalemate, whatever...I do see these particular debates as polarized, and one of the things I'd hoped to get across is that I think it's foolish to pick sides here; my main objective was to "attack" Mr. Sugden exactly how he attacked Anderson (and I think if you look carefully at the article and Sugden's chapter on Kosminski you will find that I go much easier on Sugden than he does on Anderson, about whom he seems to have nothing at all good to say)- my point being to show how perceptions can influence beliefs; and how precarious it is to theorize. I need to address some of the particulars that have been brought up, but I'm a bit distracted by the shoulder I had to freeze tonight (ice hockey in August?), and I really need a beer, so I'll be back tomorrow.

[Stewart P Evans]

Mystery

Of Anderson's theory John writes, "...what may, in the end, turn out to be the simplest and most obvious solution.)" Unfortunately, as any objective observer should know by now, there never will be a solution to this mystery.

The danger here is that we shall end up with another circular debate about the claims that Anderson made and the validity of those claims. Anderson's words have been there for all to read and assess for the past one hundred years. However, they were given new life and relevance by two authors in 1987/8 resulting in their conclusion in 1991 that "...despite these problems, the combined testimony of Anderson and Swanson weighs heavily towards the identity of the Ripper having been known (but see Anderson's suspect for the problem surrounding even this conclusion)." (The Jack the Ripper A to Z by Begg, Fido and Skinner, 1991).

Even more emphatically, in the entry on Aaron Kosminski, these authors state, "Innocent or guilty, it is research centred on Aaron Kosminski, the authors believe, which will most likely lead to the identification of Jack the Ripper, if it has not done so already." (emphasis mine) These are very strong words published in an influential reference work on the case. It fired the imagination of several budding Ripperologists who felt that they could go on to solve the case.

Now amongst the readers of Jack the Ripper literature are to be found very few dedicated researchers with sufficient interest to persevere and to go on to contribute new information of relevance to significant areas of the subject. John Malcolm is one such dedicated researcher. This goes a long way towards understanding the article (or 'turd' as he describes it) that he has dropped from a great height courtesy of The Casebook Examiner.