Did Anderson Know

[Christine]

I've gotta ask you this: Anderson declares in Blackwood's Magazine (1910) that they did, indeed, solve the Ripper case. They didn't publicize it because, "no public benefit would result in such a course, and the old traditions of my department would suffer."

What the heck did he mean? How could knowing the case was solved NOT benefit a public that might still be in fear of the Ripper?

Kosminski's family apparently had him committed to an asylum, although there's some confusion about what exactly happened and when, and the witness who supposedly named Kosminski as the man he saw also may have been unsure, but for some reason did not wish to go public about it. Furthermore, both Kosminski and the reluctant witness were Jews, and there was a potential for some sort of anti-Semitic violence.

In other words, they may not have had enough evidence to convict the suspect at trial, at least not without the cooperation of friends and family who had no particular incentive to cooperate and considerable incentive to keep quiet, but it was clear that he would never be allowed to harm anyone again. All this is muddled by Kosminski apparently walking around free years later, but I think that's the gist of what Anderson meant.

[perrymason]

I've gotta ask you this: Anderson declares in Blackwood's Magazine (1910) that they did, indeed, solve the Ripper case. They didn't publicize it because, "no public benefit would result in such a course, and the old traditions of my department would suffer."

What the heck did he mean? How could knowing the case was solved NOT benefit a public that might still be in fear of the Ripper?

It doesnt make sense unless they happened accidentally upon this knowledge, and disclosing that wouldnt exactly earn them accolades. In 1910 likely no-one feared a Ripper, so I think he was correct in the "benefit" statement ....but if it was true and the capture was the result of police investigations...something they could show was done with some transparency....then I believe they would have taken the front pages of most every newspaper themselves. Shout it from the mountain tops. Commission songs to be written about it. Build a memorial. Re-Name a section of town after one of the head cheeses. Printed 'WE GOT IM" T-shirts. Had a parade. Made it a Bank Holiday. Made Scotland Yard look like the group of super sleuths people think it is...rather than a location.

Best regards

[Voyeur]

Ah. Great answers, Christine & perrymason. Thanks for setting me straight

[gary]

Hi Caz

Sorry about late reply..I think I'm going down with flue?....So a little muddy.

Thanks for your clarification..obviously I respect your perspective on the matter of forgery. I have no wish to teach 'egg sucking'. (and I mean that in a generous way, I'm not suggesting your old).

Re: Davies. I'm not certain of anything else he has qualified, or how he has qualified other analysis documents. He seems to be an expert at scotland yard excepted by most people I have spoken with. Including the posters here. But I except that the way he addressed other examinations might/would be relevant.

I think it unlikely that the Marginalia could be an old forgery...the name Kosminski/Kosmanski only came to light comparitively recently.

Any suggestion of a forgery implicates Jim Swanson or his brother. Neither of whom appear to have any background in saphisticated forgery

(Your all going to have to forgive my dyslecxia I aint feeking good tonight..)

So an inportant question might be. 'IS the end note writen by one person?'

which seems apparent..

or is it all by the same person?

The stated difference appears to be between one set of written comments and the other, at the end..

I dont think that we're suggesting that only the comment and name 'Kosminski'..are the only added section? perhaps?

The doubts appear to come from the coincidental 'timing' of the appearance

(which I must admit is foretuatus)

AND SLIGHT DIFFERENCES IN THE END NOTES. Diifferent colour pencil, slight variation of hand writing (which may be attributed to Swansons age) But I think the suggestion is that they were (ie end notes) written by one person?

Clearly, as you know Caz, this is a question that has troubled me for some time. And also because I believe Rob House has it correct (for what thats worth).

If the Marginalia is a forgery then that all collapses...

Anderson is a very interesting side line. But the Marginalia is important.

Clearly I wouldnt have ask the questions of Stewart Evans at conference if i didnt respect his opinion. And clearly I wouldnt be here asking more if there were no doubts in my mind.

So again, for what its worth..and bearing in mind I've given Paul a much harder time than I've given Stewart over the Jim Swanson Story.

I'd bet my house its genuine..my car, my possessions, my books and CD's.

I'd consider.... over night,,and with some sleep... betting my life on it.

even my camera and edit system...(just)

But if you asked me would I bet my daughters life...

The answer would still be a deffinate 'NO'

Which makes me wonder whether more examination of the document might be justified...what harm could that do?

Respect Caz...if I've gotten your meaning wrong I appologuise its been a long week and I'm very tierd..

So an early nioght..oh for those days of rock'n'roll..

Sweet dreams

Pirate

Hi all,
Don't quite get the issue about the different pencil types. Why should all of
the marginalia have been written at the same time/with the same pencil?
How many pencils and pens does everyone have indoors? He resumed his
comments after an interlude, and simply picked up a different implement.
No mystery at all.

Gary.

[Jeff Leahy]

He compared the two samples of literature for their general style, the size, spacing, fluency and proportions and found it was highly likely they were written by the same person – Donald Swanson.
...
“What was interesting about analysing the book was that it had been annotated twice in two different pencils at different times, which does raise the question of how reliable the second set of notes were as they were made some years later. There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors. It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”


I think you will find that it is the exact wording in Davis report that is important.

Although it must be stressed that that report hasn’t been published in full.

In my personal opinion the wording is nothing more than an expert covering his own back with how he has chosen to word his conclusion.

Please remember that the marginalia has been examined twice and both experts believed Swanson probably wrote it…

I’ll leave the experts in grammar to debate the meaning of the word ‘Probably”.

As far as I’m aware. No one has offered up a credible explanation How, when or whom may have forged the marginalia.

And most authorities on the case seem to believe, it was probably written by Swanson.

When examined by S P Evans in 2002 he noticed that the endnotes were written in a slightly different colour pencil. This was not previously noticed by the other authorities Begg and Skinner.

It is my personal opinion that a third and final expert examination of the marginalia would put any such questions beyond reasonable doubt. It is my personal opinion that it is almost certainly genuine.

And a very important document when considering the question: Did Anderson Know?

If it is genuine, clearly he new something. The question is then What did he know?

all best Gary

Pirate

[gary]

To pirate Jack,
Ta for in depth reply.
Appreciated!

Gary

[caz]

...“...There are enough similarities between the writing in the book and that found in the ledger to suggest that it probably was Swanson’s writing, although in the second, later set, there are small differences. These could be attributed to the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration, but we cannot be completely certain that is the explanation. The added complication is that people in the Victorian era tended to have very similar writing anyway as they were all taught the same copybook, so the kind of small differences I observed may just have been the small differences between different authors. It is most likely to be Swanson, but I’m sure the report will be cause for lively debate amongst those interested in the case.”...

...I’ll leave the experts in grammar to debate the meaning of the word ‘Probably”...

Hi Jeff,

Not sure this takes an expert in grammar. Interpreting the written word is in itself an inexact science, in even the best hands, when it relies on the writer's ability to express himself perfectly, using precise terms, so that what is written is exactly what he intended to convey - no more, no less, first time round. If there is no further clarification from the writer himself, or a report is incomplete, we can only presume that what we get is what the writer wanted us to get.

Having said that, I like to think that anyone familiar with how such reports tend to be worded, when any conclusions are based on opinion rather than verifiable fact, would recognise the key words above as typical indications of a professional exercising the admirable caution of stopping short of the 'completely certain' top line.

It's up to the individual interpreter to judge from the available text whether 'most likely' (concerning the 'second, later set', which exhibited the small differences) was intended by the author of the report to come across as:

51% Swanson/49% A.N.Other of indeterminate age/date

99% Swanson/1% Victorian-schooled A.N.Other to cover my arse

or somewhere in between.

I think it would be a total hoot if what Anderson was actually up against was Schwartz coming face to face with the man suspected of assaulting Stride and calling out "Lipski"; being startled at the realisation that he was Jewish and feeble-minded, and refusing to testify against him.

Schwartz may have been assuming all along that the man was anti-Jewish. Reviewing the situation, he may have worried that the man probably had just been a bit rough with the woman before shuffling off harmlessly, leaving the field clear for the real killer. After all, Schwartz hadn't seen an actual murder, so how could he in all conscience deliver this man up if the police had already concluded that whoever he saw was the man who committed this and all the other murders? If his English was not much improved by then, his given reasons for bailing out and Anderson's understanding of same would - once again - have relied on the quality of the interpretation services at their disposal.

Imagine if 'Kosminski was the suspect' and the ripper took full advantage of it.

Just a bit of idle speculation before taking myself off for an extended Bank Holiday weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

It's up to the individual interpreter to judge from the available text whether 'most likely' (concerning the 'second, later set', which exhibited the small differences) was intended by the author of the report to come across as:

51% Swanson/49% A.N.Other of indeterminate age

99% Swanson/1% Victorian-schooled A.N.Other to cover my arse

or somewhere in between.

I think it's important to bear in mind that what Jeff quoted above was not from Davies's report, but from brief comments included in a Forensic Science Service press release.

There is no basis for assuming that Davies wasn't more precise about his conclusions in the report proper.

[Chris]

Here's a further snippet from The Nineteenth century and After, February 1908 (available at http://books.google.com/books?id=H5ARAAAAMAAJ). In an article entitled Criminals and Crime: A Rejoinder, Anderson is responding to a Mr H. J. B. Montgomery in a discussion that followed the publication of Anderson's Criminals and Crime the previous year. He mentions the Whitechapel Murders in passing, in a footnote:





As far as I can see, Broadmoor isn't actually mentioned in Criminals and Crime (see below). This may be relevant for anyone who is inclined to take seriously the claim made by the New York Times in 1910 that Anderson had disclosed that the Whitechapel murderer had been committed to Broadmoor.

[Chris]

Here are the relevant extracts from Anderson's Criminals and Crime (1907), which is available at http://books.google.com/books?id=WN0qAAAAMAAJ:

Pages 3 and 4:




Pages 77 and 78:

[Jeff Leahy]

Which would also seem to confirm that Anderson’s story of a Lunatic locked in an Asylum (not Broadmore) were pretty much formulated when he was still completely with all his mental faculties in 1907.

Andrew Cook might like to also note that Anderson appears to know of a journalist who wrote the letters yet still appears to confirm there was a real serial killer on the lose.

Cheers for that information Chris

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Anyone who seriously believes Anderson "knew" is being disingenuous.But there is a difference, ofcourse, between Anderson fooling himself and/or fooling the readers of his autobiography and the public into believing he knew and Anderson actually "knowing".Anderson clearly didnt have the first clue who the Ripper was and poor old Swanson was clearly allowing himself to be led by the nose.
With All Good Wishes,
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, I’m aware of your views on this Norma, the question is can that claim be substantiated?

Trust you are well

Pirate

[celee]

Hi,

"I knew Major Griffiths for many years. He probably got his information from Anderson who only 'thought he knew'. Littlechild's remarks makes it clear to me that Anderson thought he knew. Anderson was not lieing to save face. It is simple, Anderson believed a witness that others must have thought was dubious.

Your friend, Brad

[Scott Nelson]

OK look (and I'm really getting tired of this uninformed discussion)

Anderson's posthumous quote "The necessary evidence for his conviction is unobtainable." (Daily Telegraph, 19 November 1918).