Did Anderson Know

[Natalie Severn]

Actually it simply says they were written at differant times in a differant pencil.

So he could have been writing one in his study..gone for lunch and finished it in the summer house..perhaps only hours, days or weeks apart..

Which isnt uncommon with such things, mine are often some time apart.

And yes everyone I can 'read' actually its getting rather borring..

Jeff

Actually Jeff, it doesnt say that about the "end paper" notes.Its" hedges"---quite a bit and indicates quite clearly why the "end paper notes" are of uncertain reliability.
However, its getting late here so I am happy to return to this tomorrow,when I can give it more attention.
I still need to respond to Chris George about his post further back.I would draw attention here to the context of the marginalia---the fact that when words or phrases are taken out their of context in English sentence structuring-as in isolating the words "kosminski is the suspect"from the flow of the marginalia----ie the free flow of his,Swanson"s ideas, the meaning of the sentence can lose its subtlety-there were shifting thoughts at play in the marginalia---its not just a bland statement of fact.
Anyway - until tomorrow,
Cheers
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

No - the report says it is "highly likely" that the annotations in the book were written by Swanson. It points to "small differences" between the two sets of annotations, which could be due to the ageing process, though it says that we can't be "completely certain" that they are.

But it does point out that this could raise questions about the reliability of the second set of notes. Reliability is different from genuineness, of course.

Yes,I am getting tired and have a cold! That is almost as I read it.......

[Observer]

Hi

What was the content of the portion of marginalia that Dr Davies considered genuine, in his opinion the handwriting of Donald Swanson? If it contained all the relevent facts then what's the problem.

all the best

Observer

[Stewart P Evans]

Relevance

Hi
What was the content of the portion of marginalia that Dr Davies considered genuine, in his opinion the handwriting of Donald Swanson? If it contained all the relevent facts then what's the problem.
all the best
Observer

The part of the writing that has come under question is that on the rear endpaper. You will see on the other thread that I have fully described the problems regarding the examination of the handwriting.

As to relevance, the fact is the most controversial information contained in the annotations in the book is that written on the rear endpaper, and not the marginalia. It runs -

"continuing from page 138 after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspects return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day and night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards -
Kosminski was the suspect - DSS"

Now the problems raised here are -

1. It describes a non-standard identification at an apparently distant location for which no reason can be deduced.

2. The notes state 'sent by us' as opposed to 'taken by us' which, you would think, would have been said if the police had taken the suspect.

3. It states that the suspect knew he was identified yet the police do not detain him - he is returned to his brother's house. Odd for someone who has supposedly just been identified as Jack the Ripper.

4. He was watched by City CID - why? He lived in Whitechapel, or are we looking at a City Police identification?

5. This identification, if referring to Aaron and not some other Kosminski, must have taken place in July 1890 whereas Anderson's own reference relates to February 1891.

6. He was sent to a workhouse 'in a very short time', it was 6 months later.

7. He was not sent to Stepney Workhouse, he was sent to Mile End Old Town Workhouse.

8. The grammar is bad.

9. He did not die 'shortly afterwards', Aaron died in 1919.

So that is what the problems are.

[Chris]

5. This identification, if referring to Aaron and not some other Kosminski, must have taken place in July 1890...

I'm afraid I don't follow that at all. I know that date has been suggested in the past, but I don't see the evidence for it as anything more than a possibility.

[Observer]

Hi Stewart

I have already asked you this over on the Aaron Kosminski thread but will also ask here as it's also relevent to this thread. What is the content of the faded notation in Swansons copy of Andersons book? I understand that the notes written in the endpapers are more easily read, they being made with a different pencil.

Considering that the endpaper notes were not written by Donald Sawanson who would have had an opportunity to write them? What was the history of the book after Swanson died, would the immediate family of Swanson have the nous to write the notes?

In the endpapers we have the first mention of a seaside home, even if the seaside home is Sadlers seamans home then the story is still an old one, so it's at least possible that Swanson passed on this information to one of his relatives

Could it be that Swanson wrote the old faded part of the marginalia, and the newer part, the part written in the endpapers was written by one of his descendents acting on what he had heard passed down from the mouth of his anscestor?

all the best

Observer

[Stewart P Evans]

Admission

I'm afraid I don't follow that at all. I know that date has been suggested in the past, but I don't see the evidence for it as anything more than a possibility.

I know that it is all very complex. The records of Mile End Old Town Workhouse show that Aaron Kosminski was admitted on 12 July 1890. Three days later he was discharged into his brother's care (to 3 Sion Square), i.e. on 15 July 1890. On 4 February 1891 Aaron was re-admitted to the workhouse, this time from 16 Greenfield Street and was never released again. These are the only admissions shown. The endpaper notes state that Kosminski was sent for identification at the Seaside Home and then "...returned to his brother's house in Whitechapel" then "...In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch" which therefore refers to 4 and 7 February 1891, meaning this is how the date of the supposed identification is arrived at - based on what the notes say as compared to the workhouse records (albeit not Stepney Workhouse). Otherwise, presumably, it must refer to another, unidentified, Kosminski with a similar admission record. According to Anderson, writing about his suspect in Blackwoods, "when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him..." which puts the identification after his incarceration on 7 February 1891. However in his book Anderson states "I will merely add that the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him..." The identification Anderson refers to is surely the same one that the marginalia refers to so we have odd contradictions.

[Stewart P Evans]

Individual

Hi Stewart
Considering that the endpaper notes were not written by Donald Sawanson who would have had an opportunity to write them? What was the history of the book after Swanson died, would the immediate family of Swanson have the nous to write the notes?
In the endpapers we have the first mention of a seaside home, even if the seaside home is Sadlers seamans home then the story is still an old one, so it's at least possible that Swanson passed on this information to one of his relatives
Could it be that Swanson wrote the old faded part of the marginalia, and the newer part, the part written in the endpapers was written by one of his descendents acting on what he had heard passed down from the mouth of his anscestor?
all the best
Observer

I'm afraid that I am reporting only the factual reasons for my unease about the endpaper notes and I am not opining on whether they are faked and, if so, who might be responsible for it - that would be sheer speculation and irresponsible without proof. All I want is for everone to be fully aware of the nature of these annotations, in fairness to them, but any speculation to account for the anomalies must remain with the individual.

[Stewart P Evans]

1908 - Strangest

Perhaps the strangest of all the interviews with Anderson is that which appeared in the Daily Chronicle of September 1, 1908. Oddly, this one is usually omitted from the pro-Anderson works. By this time, in his retirement, Anderson was speaking on criminals and crime and writing the odd journalistic piece here and there, as well as his books.

So, when a high-profile crime hit the news Anderson was a natural choice for the press to interview and ask for his opinion. At this date the notable Luard murder mystery, near Sevenoaks in Kent, was hitting the headlines and Scotland Yard had been called in by the provincial force. Macnaghten was, of course, now heading the New Scotland Yard C.I.D. as Assistant Commissioner, Anderson's old job. The front page of the Chronicle carried the latest news of the Luard murder investigation under the heading 'Summer-House Mystery.' Alongside this piece was another headed 'Crime Detection.' The Chronicle had sought out Sir R. Anderson's views. It wasn't long before Anderson was again chuntering on about the differences of the English compared to the French investigative procedures. He then drew a comparison with the investigation of the Ripper crimes as follows -



Anderson states that two clues that might have identified the Ripper were wiped out. One was a clay pipe that was smashed in a fireplace. He must be confused here as there was a clay pipe found in Kelly's room but there was no mystery about it, it wasn't apparently smashed, and it was owned by Barnett. However there was a clay pipe found at the McKenzie murder scene (which Anderson didn't think was a Ripper killing anyway) and that was smashed at the mortuary. But again there was no mystery about it. The second was the erasure of the chalk writing on the wall in Goulston Street of which Anderson stated "might have been at once recognised as belonging to a certain individual." Very strange indeed.

Anderson also says, "I told Sir William Harcourt, who was then Home Secretary, that I could not accept responsibility for non-detection of the author of the Ripper crimes, for the reasons, among others, that I have given you." This is another error of confusion by Anderson as it was Henry Matthews who was Home Secretary at the time of the Ripper crimes, not Harcourt who was an earlier Home Secretary. Anderson had known both men well and it was Matthews who had hauled him up on his return from the continent in early October 1888 - as Anderson was to write only two years later in his book, "I spent the day of my return to town, in reinvestigating the whole case, and the next day I had a long conference on the subject with the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner of Police. "We hold you responsible to find the murderer," was Mr. Matthews' greeting to me. My answer was to decline the responsibility. "I hold myself responsible," I said, "to take all legitimate means to find him."..." Anderson had been severely criticised by both Home Office and press for being abroad at the height of the murders, and Anderson did not like criticism.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Stewart,
Many Thanks for all the source materials you have posted over this matter.They are indispensable.Another couple of inconsistencies I have noted:

i]All the time that Swanson is allegedly adding information by way of marginalia and end notes to his copy of Anderson"s autobiography, the person he is stating is dead ,Kosminski, is in fact very much alive---presuming he has obtained this copy of Anderson"s autobiography shortly after its publication in 1910.
ii]your above post that contains the newspaper clipping of Sept 1st 1908, does not mention Anderson"s ''definitely ascertained fact"-----this too is odd because it appears from this that Anderson only discovered Kosminski was his man, a little before his 1910 autobiography was published-otherwise why continue to talk about their failure to catch the Ripper?

Thats what could be called "auspicious circumstances" ----but might be better described as "suspicious circumstances"!

[Stewart P Evans]

Many Thanks

Hi Stewart,
Many Thanks for all the source materials you have posted over this matter.They are indispensable.Another couple of inconsistencies I have noted:

i]All the time that Swanson is allegedly adding information by way of marginalia and end notes to his copy of Anderson"s autobiography, the person he is stating is dead ,Kosminski, is in fact very much alive---presuming he has obtained this copy of Anderson"s autobiography shortly after its publication in 1910.
ii]your above post that contains the newspaper clipping of Sept 1st 1908, does not mention Anderson"s ''definitely ascertained fact"-----this too is odd because it appears from this that Anderson only discovered Kosminski was his man, a little before his 1910 autobiography was published-otherwise why continue to talk about their failure to catch the Ripper?

Thats what could be called "auspicious circumstances" ----but might be better described as "suspicious circumstances"!

Many thanks for that Norma, appreciated and very heartening. Of course one has to wonder why these important pieces on Anderson have not been given to the reader to evaluate in the pro-Anderson books that have been published in the past. They are also missing from the A-Z.

[jason_c]

Placing too much emphasis on a 1908 press interview misses two points.

1. That Anderson claimed in 1907 that the Ripper "had been safely caged in an asylum." The inteview I cannot find but it is referenced here.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-anderson1892.html

2.Conversely, that by 1910(and possibly earlier) Anderson's memory was failing him.

I note the above interview mentions the failure to detect the Whitechapel murderer, not the identification of him.

[Stewart P Evans]

Memory

Placing too much emphasis on a 1908 press interview misses two points.
1. That Anderson claimed in 1907 that the Ripper "had been safely caged in an asylum." The inteview I cannot find but it is referenced here.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-anderson1892.html

2.Conversely, that by 1910(and possibly earlier) Anderson's memory was failing him.
I note the above interview mentions the failure to detect the Whitechapel murderer, not the identification of him.

No one is 'placing too much emphasis on a 1908 press interview' - it is the fact that this report has been left out of the reckoning by the pro-Anderson writers but should have been included to give the reader the full picture. Much is based on press interviews, it is often all we have. But there are caveats.

Under point 1. you are referring to what Anderson wrote in his book Criminals and Crime: Some Facts and Suggestions, London, James Nisbet & Co., Limited, 1907. But as this was merely repeating what he said in his February 1901 piece in The Nineteenth Century I didn't include it in my timeline. His relevant words were "...the inhabitants of the metropolis generally were just as secure during the weeks the fiend was on the prowl,as they were before the mania seized him, or after he had been safely caged in an asylum." No mention of a Polish Jew, an identification or any of the other details about the suspect contained in his 1910 writings.

As for point 2., we know Anderson's memory was 'playing up', I have posted what H. L. Adam, who knew him personally, had to say about that. The strange 1908 Chronicle interview, probably given off the cuff from memory when he was seen by the interviewer, is symptomatic of such memory confusion and ties in well with what Adam spoke of.

I am not out to 'get' Anderson, or to denigrate him. I am out to get to the truth. In recent years we have been given a one-sided, selective and sanitised idea of the man. Please let's all be open and consider all the evidence, such as it is.

[jason_c]

Stewart,

My claim over too much emphasis being placed on a 1908 interview was aimed primarily at Natalie. She stated "it appears from this that Anderson only discovered Kosminski was his man, a little before his 1910 autobiography was published-otherwise why continue to talk about their failure to catch the Ripper?"

A game of semantics is going on in with these Anderson interviews and posts on this thread. At no point was JtR caught and convicted. But a plausible arguement can be made by Anderson that he was caged and identified(assuming JtR was Kosminski).

[Sam Flynn]

Other annotations?

Stewart,

Do any annotations by "DSS" appear elsewhere in Swanson's copy of the Anderson book, or are they confined only to p. 138 and the back? I'd be interested to know.