Did Anderson Know

[Chris]

It seems to me that to often the JtR case is discussed in terms of the modern mind set, and not placed in its historical perspective, so the opinion of a learned historian on the subject is at least appreciated by some.

Just as a matter of fact, I believe Martin Fido's academic training was in English literature, not history.

There are a number of academics and ex-academics active in Ripper research. As one of the ex-academics, I wouldn't dream of trying to "pull rank" on anyone on the basis of having received "scholarly training", in the form of a higher degree. I certainly wouldn't dream of trying to pull rank on Stewart Evans, whose work in this field is as scholarly as any and much more scholarly than most.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just as a matter of fact, I believe Martin Fido's academic training was in English literature, not history.

There are a number of academics and ex-academics active in Ripper research. As one of the ex-academics, I wouldn't dream of trying to "pull rank" on anyone on the basis of having received "scholarly training", in the form of a higher degree. I certainly wouldn't dream of trying to pull rank on Stewart Evans, whose work in this field is as scholarly as any and much more scholarly than most.

Neither Stewart or Martins knowledge of the subject is being questioned. On the contrary.

There does however appear a slight difference in their stance on Anderson.

Who is clearly a complex character..

Can we please stay on thread with 'Did Anderson Know?'

perhaps Rose Millet would be a good pace to start?

Pirate

[Chris]

Neither Stewart or Martins knowledge of the subject is being questioned.

When someone writes something like "Nobody with any scholarly training could doubt for a moment that the Swanson marginalia are genuine ..." there is a clear implication that those who disagree with the writer's assertions are doing so only because of their lack of "scholarly training".

On this point, it is worth noting again what Dr Christopher Davies, the Forensic Science Service document examiner, said about the marginalia:
“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.”

As far as I'm aware, that's the only expert opinion in the public domain, and it presents a balanced conclusion which obviously leaves room for doubt about the authorship of the marginalia.

I should say that I don't believe myself that the marginalia were written by someone other than Swanson. But I dislike attempts to belittle those who do think there is room for doubt - who evidently include Dr Davies - on the basis of Martin Fido's supposedly superior "scholarly training". And I do think it's important to bear in mind his suggestion about the crucial second set of notes - that the differences in the handwriting there may be attributable to "the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration".

[Jeff Leahy]

When someone writes something like "Nobody with any scholarly training could doubt for a moment that the Swanson marginalia are genuine ..." there is a clear implication that those who disagree with the writer's assertions are doing so only because of their lack of "scholarly training".

I simply don't know how you have come to this conclussion Chris.

Surely Stewart has stated very clearly that he does not believe the Marginalia is a forgery. I pressed Stewart on this point myself at conference and have it on camera.

Stewart has said that it was correct to raise the question "is the Maginalia genuine" and I have never heard that Martin has critisised anyone for wanting the Marginalia examined and double checked..it's logical.

What is the problem here?

Surely they agree?

On this point, it is worth noting again what Dr Christopher Davies, the Forensic Science Service document examiner, said about the marginalia:
“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.”

As far as I'm aware, that's the only expert opinion in the public domain, and it presents a balanced conclusion which obviously leaves room for doubt about the authorship of the marginalia.

I should say that I don't believe myself that the marginalia were written by someone other than Swanson. But I dislike attempts to belittle those who do think there is room for doubt - who evidently include Dr Davies - on the basis of Martin Fido's supposedly superior "scholarly training". And I do think it's important to bear in mind his suggestion about the crucial second set of notes - that the differences in the handwriting there may be attributable to "the ageing process and either a mental or physical deterioration".

Again surely there is No disagreement between Stewart and Martin on this piont?

I just don't understand. Surely Stewart was correct to raise his reservations.

Surely this says the Marginalia is genuine?

So the important issue is...

Did Anderson Know who was Jack the Ripper?

Pirate

[Chris]

What is the problem here?

Sory, but I think I made myself perfectly clear in my last post. If you didn't understand what I wrote then, I don't think there's any point in my trying to explain further now.

[Edit. The fact that you can respond to an expert opinion that the author is "most likely to be Swanson", but that the differences between the different sections "may just have been the small differences between different authors", with the interpretation, "Surely this says the Marginalia is genuine?" only reinforces my impression that it would be a waste of time to try to explain further.]

[Jeff Leahy]

Sory, but I think I made myself perfectly clear in my last post. If you didn't understand what I wrote then, I don't think there's any point in my trying to explain further now.

[Edit. The fact that you can respond to an expert opinion that the author is "most likely to be Swanson", but that the differences between the different sections "may just have been the small differences between different authors", with the interpretation, "Surely this says the Marginalia is genuine?" only reinforces my impression that it would be a waste of time to try to explain further.]

No i'm not clear..

So i will ask you the same question I ask Stewart..

Do you believe that the Swanson Marginalia is a forgery?

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

I'm starting to think you are just trying to cause trouble.

Please just read what I have already written. It's perfectly clear.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

I'm starting to think you are just trying to cause trouble.

Please just read what I have already written. It's perfectly clear.

I'm not trying to cause any trouble what so ever..

I'm interested in Martin and Stewart's perceptions of Anderson. Which they clearly have scholarly differences on..

I have been over and over the Swanson Marginalia with different people and experts...

Its genuine....

I'm simply having difficulty understanding what you are saying..

and i have no reason to argue with you...sorry if you are interpreting me in this way...I'm not good in type

I just dont think there is a difference on the Swanson Marginalia between Martin and Stewart..as far as I can see..

Pirate

[Chris]

I'm simply having difficulty understanding what you are saying..

It's here, in a nutshell:
"I should say that I don't believe myself that the marginalia were written by someone other than Swanson. But I dislike attempts to belittle those who do think there is room for doubt - who evidently include Dr Davies - on the basis of Martin Fido's supposedly superior "scholarly training". "

As I said, I don't know how I could have made myself any clearer.

[fido]

Thanks to all who have commented.
Now let's have a little precision. Anybody and everybody may disagree with my conclusions whatever their educational level. And they may well be right and I wrong - that isn't in question.
Nor, as I carefully stated, do I or Paul Begg ever suggest that anybody should accept Anderson as an unimpeachable witness. We have always said he could have been wrong. We note that "his witness" may have been used again in 1895, which, if true, would suggest the ID was not accepted. We note with interest the PMG interview with the possibility that Anderson himself had not reached his final conclusion by its date. We are aware that Williamson dismissed Anderson's opinion as belief, not knowledge. We are aware that Abberline dismisses the view he knows to be held that the Ripper died in an asylum. Our words in the A to Z are in no way intended to undermine these valid questions about Anderson's reliability, and the A to Z was not the forum to go ito controversial discussion of our reasons for thinking they are not a conclusive reason for dismissing Anderson. All we wish to do is remove from the discussion the totally erroneous suggestion (made repeatedly by almost everyone except Richard Whittington-Egan prior to 1987, and now revived occasionally) that Anderson was lying and boasting. For all the over-confidence in his own rightness and rectitude that his work displays, Anderson was not that sot of flaneur. One contrast is with, for example, Major Smith, who embroiders (e.g. describing his career as being "From Constable to Commissioner, when he was actually moving from Chief Constable to Commissioner!) and was described as unreliable by a contemporary. The criticisms of Anderson's reliabiity all come from political opponents and relate to hs political policing activities. (And that is why his memoirs attracted little attention over Jack the Ripper. It was far more interesting to the public that he had been involved in official anti-Parnellite skulduggery. Who would care today if Donald Rumsfeld published a book revealing that he had always known who the Boston strangler/s were and giving some new data, if the book also revealed that he had done something deliberately misleading and arguably dishonest or corrupt to ensure that the USA went to war with Iraq?) Anybody who wishes to challenge Anderson's veracity really needs to study the man in the full and in the round. Arguments resting on a partial examination of one aspect of his life are not going to convince those who have based their conclusions on a fuller study. (And by the way, for the gentleman wondering why as a literary scholar I claim historical training, I should point out that my research was in literary history, dealing with Disraeli and focussing on Victorian attitudes in politics, religion and social questions; and it also included training in paleography - the examination of old handwriting. Apart from the horrors of the Elizabethan secretary hand, I've devoted enough time to the scrawl of Disraeli and relatively crabbed hand of Dickens to be comfortable with Victorian documents. Swanson's hand is a doddle by comparison. One should add that Stewart's success in identifying the real hand the transcriber of Packer's statement is one of the best hand-writing observations in Ripper work. I mistrust most professional handwriting experts, several of whom failed to detect the word "Sor" in the Lusk letter: I was impressed, however, with Sue Iremonger who worked on the Maybrick diary. Note, too, that literary historians are always called in when questions of forgery are involved. The allegations that Walter Hooper forged the C.S.Lewis fragment "The Dark Tower" was passed to a panel headed by the lierary scholar Fracis Warner. The Sunday Times examination of the Maybrick Diary used an Oxford Victorian literature scholar among others).
A first principle of scholarship is that if you are going to challenge someone's conclusions, you have to repeat his work. (This is obvious in science, where the repeatability of experiments is crucial to their results being accepted or dismissed.) Failure to do this results in absurdities like the website I visited this afternoon which avers that many theorists believe Kosminsky to be the murder because the murders stopped when he went into the asylum. They didn't; tey'd stopped two years earlier, and this is precisely why I do NOT believe he was the murderer, though I think that it would have led me to believe, like so many other people,that Anderson was simply WRONG if I had not already found the man who DID go into the asylum as the murders ended and who also fitted Anderson's description. After that, the Swanson marginalia was icing on the cake since it carried details which could best be explained by what I had already proposed - that Kosminski and Cohen became confused with each other in the minds of police.
Oh, and the only thing I dismiss as outrageous poppycock that nobody with any claim to scholarly standing can possibly endorse is the suggestion that the Swanson marginalia were tampered with or forged. Their provenance is impeccable, and any attempts to claim otherwise simply show that the claimant either doesn't understand what provenance is and how it is assessed, or is for some unknown reason struggling to cast more serious doubt on the marginalia than their errors of fact already make inevitable. Neither forensic science nor handwriting examination have ever given any reason to suggest that anyone other than Swanson wrote them, and it is depserately misleading to those who come new to the case to suggest tnat there is any question whatsoever about their being genuine. Interpretation of them and their errors is another matter. Paul Begg and I differ profoundly over this, and anyone is entitled to offer different readings and reach different conclusions. It is sheer rubbish to sugest that the oddity is the result of tampering, however.
All the best,
Martin F

[Chris]

(And by the way, for the gentleman wondering why as a literary scholar I claim historical training, I should point out that my research was in literary history ...

If that was directed at me, I did not "wonder" about any claim you had made.

I merely posted what I thought was a factual correction to Jeff's description of you as a "learned historian" - by pointing out that (from what I had read) your academic training was in English literature, not history. But if you view yourself primarily as a historian, who am I to disagree?

... it would have led me to believe, like so many other people,that Anderson was simply WRONG if I had not already found the man who DID go into the asylum as the murders ended and who also fitted Anderson's description.

I have started another thread for discussion of your claim that "Cohen is the only patient who fits Anderson's account". If you'd like to contribute to that thread, I'm sure many people would be interested to read your contribution:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1128

... Oh, and the only thing I dismiss as outrageous poppycock that nobody with any claim to scholarly standing can possibly endorse is the suggestion that the Swanson marginalia were tampered with or forged.

With respect, that is not what you said, and not what I took exception to.

You said:
As for the suggestion that the Swanson marginalia might have been forged or doctored, it is unbelievable poppycock.
[my emphasis]

Obviously, suggesting that something might have happened is very different from suggesting that it did happen.

The evaluation by Christopher Davies, which I quoted earlier, states that the differences between the different sections "may just have been the small differences between different authors". He does not say that he considers this likely, but evidently he considers that it may be the explanation for the observed differences.

I don't consider it likely either, but I take exception to personal attacks on those who honestly consider that there is room for doubt about the matter. I don't think it's appropriate to describe that view as "unbelievable poppycock" - or to say that it could not be held by anyone with "scholarly training" - particularly as that is the view held by the only document examiner who has looked at the marginalia and whose conclusions have been made public.

[fido]

With respect, that is not what you said, and not what I took exception to.

You said:
As for the suggestion that the Swanson marginalia might have been forged or doctored, it is unbelievable poppycock.
[my emphasis]

Obviously, suggesting that something might have happened is very different from suggesting that it did happen.


We-e-ell... I'm sorry if you find it offensive, Chris, but I think that splitting hairs about the difference between a past indicative and a past subjunctive doesn't lead me to wish to withdraw anything. The marginalia were sent by Paul Begg to Home Office document examiner Dick Totty for comparison with Swanson's handwriting nearly 20 years ago. (So much for the idea that Paul resists having the evidence we rely upon tested). Totty's first report was manifest nonsense: he said there wasn't a single point of similarity between Swanson's hand and the marginalia. Knowing this to be untrue from my own knowledge of Swanson's hand I roundly disputed this as rubbish and pushed Paul to have the test investigated. It turned out Totty had been sent a sample of writing that wasn't Swanson's. With the real thing in front of him he immediately confirmed the marginalia as genuine. The analysis that shows the pencils on the page and the endpaper to be different and apparently applied at different times, likewise confirms that there is no reason to doubt the writing is Swanson's. The existence of the marginalia in the unbroken possession of legal heirs who had never previously shown any interest or subsequently any very great interest in the Ripper, and have never attempted to profdit by it beyond a 75 quid payment from News of the World when the grandsons first found the notes simply rules out any question of tampering or doctoring. All this has been in the public domain for nearly 20 years, and so anybody properly informed should advise any interested enquirer that that line of investigation is finished. Of course the work can be repeated if any doubt is felt, but nobody has turned up a smidgeon of evidence to suggest that tampering or forgery has anything to do with the problems of the marginalia, and it is a foolish waste of time to embark on any thinking that hopes to lead off from such an idea. I am delighted to hear that Stewart said at conference that there is no doubt the notes were by Swanson. That needs to be said loud and clear every time the subject comes up. Only once that is clear can one go into discussions of whether he made his mistakes because he was misinformed, or geriatrically confused, or even (as I propose, fully recognizing it is only a hypothesis) because he was confusing an account of a man followed on Metropolitan territory by the City Police with one identified for the Met by a witness who was actually witness to a crime committed on City territory.
All the best,
Martin F

[Septic Blue]

I am delighted to hear that Stewart said at conference that there is no doubt the notes were by Swanson.

Stewart Evans said no such thing, during his presentation in Wolverhampton !!! Period !!!

Rest assured that your 'source', in this case, is not "scholarly".


Colin

[Stewart P Evans]

Facts

No one knows the identity of Jack the Ripper - and no one ever will. As unpopular as this statement might be, it is one that, in my opinion, cannot be gainsaid. This unfortunate situation, together with a dearth of hard facts, leads to the speculation that is so rife in this particular field of historical research. It also leads to much polarisation and, in many cases, personal attack amongst those involved.

It is a field that I first seriously entered in 1965 and in which I have seen great changes and developments in the years that have passed since. I have learnt a lot over these years and have met many with similar interests to my own. For nearly thirty of those intervening years I was a police officer, which, albeit not 'scholarly training', taught me much about human nature and, indeed, life. My police and legal training, I also studied law before entering the police service, gave me a very good understanding of evidence and police procedure which served me well in the study of the historical Ripper sources. Overall it also taught me never to blindly accept 'facts' as presented in a secondary source, without first accessing original or prime source material. This debate has raised many points of interest which are, unfortunately, contentious and divisive. There has also been a lot of speculation and opinion running through it. It is also quite apparent that there are those who simply want something to be the truth, or factual, when it unfortunately falls short of the mark. Their reasoning becomes tainted by the need for this 'something' to be a fact, rather than opinion, and an obvious lack of objectivity.

So much has been committed to print in the past that I am reluctant to trail it all out in detail again here. Apropos of Anderson's writings we have the glaring example of his treatment of the historical record in his 1910 book where he clearly states that the unsolved murder of Rose Mylett (hard on the heels of the Ripper crimes) was not a murder at all but was a 'death from natural causes'. This is an obvious nonsense and the historical record shows that it was recorded and 'on the books' at Scotland Yard as an unsolved crime of murder. This, as we know, did not sit easily with Anderson and he went to extreme lengths at the time to 'write it off' by claiming it was a death from natural causes and not another unsolved major crime on his books. He failed dismally in 1888 but amazingly 22 years later in 1910 he committed to black and white the 'fact' that Mylett died from natural causes. As I have pointed out, any modern historical researcher using Anderson's book as his source could be totally misled by this.

To get Anderson's character and his 1910 revelations into a different perspective to that presented by some we need only refer to the contemporary sources. And these comments did not arise merely from political bias but were, indeed, stated equally by those of opposing political persuasions. The main summation, of course, came from Winston Churchill, the then Home Secretary. He described Anderson's 1910 writings as "...the garrulous and inaccurate indiscretion of advancing years." (Anderson was almost 70 at the time). Churchill had looked through the Anderson articles in Blackwood's and concluded "...they seem to me to be written in a spirit of gross boastfulness - they are written, if I may say so, in the style of 'How Bill Adams won the battle of Waterloo.' The writer seems so anxious to show how important he was, how invariably he was right, and how much more he could tell if only his mouth was not, what he was pleased to call, closed. The most curious feature of these articles is the extremely spiteful references to other Civil servants with whom Sir Robert Anderson served - Sir Godfrey Lushington and the late Lord Thring, two servants of the State for whom the highest respect was entertained. Both are made the object of an offensive and pointless observation..."

It is a matter of some concern to me that certain pro-Anderson sources have never presented the full and proper picture of the man as he was seen by his contemporaries and, as we know, Monro was quizzed in 1910 as to Anderson's claims. Monro replied -

"In 1887 I was Assistant Commissioner Metroploitan Police, under the Home Office, in charge of secret work. Mr. Anderson was an agent of mine (as were others), chiefly as being a channel of information received from a man in America [Le Caron], who corresponded directly with him, and whose name I did not know. When The Times earlier articles appeared, they certainly caused a sensation in London, and everybody was talking about them. I have no doubt that Mr. Anderson and I talked about them, and I can quite imagine that I may have welcomed public interest being directed to the existence of a dangerous conspiracy. But such an expression of opinion was a very different thing from authorising an agent of mine to give information to the public. Such a course would have been opposed to all my training in a Service where communication on the part of officials with the Press was carefully limited. As a matter of fact, no such authority was asked by Mr. Anderson, and none was given to him by me. When subsequently articles appeared in The Times, I was unaware of the name of the author, and naturally I made no report on the subject to the Home Office. A long time afterwards, Mr. Anderson informed me that he had written one or more of the articles, and I felt much annoyed. However, the evil, if such it was, was done, and nothing was to be gained by saying anything on the subject. I therefore observed silence. I may have mentioned the matter at the Home Office in confidential talk, but, as the incident had passed many months previously, and there was no object in reopening the question, I did not report it officially."

[Stewart P Evans]

The Swanson Marginalia

So much has been written on this topic, and the threads are still there to read, that I feel that I do not need to present it all over again.

In a nutshell, little was known about the 'Swanson Marginalia' for many years other than what had appeared in the 1987 Daily Telegraph article and the books by Messrs Fido and Begg. No other mainstream Ripper authors or aficionados had even seen the notes 'in the flesh.' And for at least 12 years what these authors had to say was accepted without question. The 1991 The Jack the Ripper A To Z was pretty specific and in conclusion stated -

"Paul Harrison's suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded. Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

Photocopies of the annotations were passed around amongst the Ripper cognoscenti and accepted without question. It was not until I met Jim Swanson in July 2000 that I saw the actual annotations in Swanson's copy of The Lighter Side of My Official Life, and discussed them with the man who had revealed them to the public. As he explained his objectives for publishing the annotations were -

1. To get some recognition of the part his grandfather had played, and

2. To put an end to all the fanciful conjecture concerning the killer and so make public the fact that the senior persons in Scotland Yard C.I.D. were satisfied that they knew who the Ripper was and that he had been safely put away.

In addition to Paul Harrison's comments on the fact that the 'marginalia' might not be genuine, another leading Ripper authority had stated privately to me in the 1990s that there was something about the endpaper notes that did not sit easily with him. I was also rather alarmed to learn that far from making a proper examination of the annotations and Swanson's own handwriting in official reports 'the Home Office document examiner' had seen only photocopies that had been sent to him. Moreover, there appeared to be no proper examination report (certainly none had or has been published) and that all that existed was a private letter to Paul Begg which had been flourished in a TV interview to 'prove' the handwriting but which I had never read.

The most striking thing, though, was the fact that when I saw the 'marginalia' first-hand it was immediately obvious that there were differences between the marginalia and the endpaper notes, both in style and the pencil used. Why had this not been noticed and commented on in 1987? Was it seen and ignored or was it simply not noticed? If it was noticed why had it not been publicly addressed at the time? Of course there may well be a totally innocent explanation for it.

Provenance simply means 'place of origin' and as a long standing collector of ephemera and memorabilia (much of which is letters) I do not need to be told what it is. Provenance can, of course, include forged material as establishing the provenance of an item can show the source to be a forger. It is still provenance. That said, there is no question at all that the copy of The Lighter Side of My Official Life once belonged to Donald Swanson and that it never left the family prior to the publication of the 'marginalia.' Indeed, to suggest any fakery would be wrong without evidence to support it. That is why it is so important, I feel, that the annotations should be professionally and properly examined and assessed. Also the full story, including the date and nature of the prior approach to the News of the World be fully explored. This, despite the misleading entry in the A-Z, has never been done.

Unfortunately these questions have been raised, rightly in my opinion, but have still not been resolved. Or perhaps everyone should have kept quiet and allowed the status quo to prevail.