Did Anderson Know

[Jeff Leahy]

[B]
Rest assured that your 'source', in this case, is not "scholarly".
Colin [ATTACH]2819[/ATTACH]

Not scholarly Colin agreed..but bloody good with a camera.

Transcription Conference Wolverhampton 2007

Jeff Leahy

“I was just wondering urm..Why would Swanson who is obviously writing for himself, in a, in a Margin, they were his own notes not for publishing, urm are you suggesting that that’s been forged at some point? That Swanson didn’t do it? And if you think that he did actually write it why would he have collaborated a story that Anderson made up, if he had nothing to gain from it, he wasn’t published it was for his own reference?

Stewart Evans

“Right OK.” Jeremy Beadle scrambles to front of conference. Stewart laughs

“Thank you Jeremy”

“I’ve got a good runner here”

“Yeah thanks Jeremy”

‘Ah well there’s a couple of points there. Unfortunately if any sort of doubt is cast on the Swanson Marginalia, Then one has to cast doubt on dear old Jim Swanson. And he was a great guy and really without any solid proof I don’t think anyone should do that.

All I question is that why was the writing in a different pencil? A different colour in fact a slightly purple tinge to it. And the writing was slightly different, you’ve got a very convenient Kosminski was the witness.

And when I arrived Jim said. He welcomed Keith and myself into the room and said

“Ah my grand father solved the Ripper case” and dear old Jim used to make a real big thing out off his Grand father Donald Swanson solved the Case.

And the other interesting thing about the Marginalia is that a lot of people have said that Swanson is confirming what Anderson said ‘Well excuse me’ where did Anderson get his information from?

Anderson never went out patrolling the beat, going to ID parades or doing anything. Anderson was a desk jockey; he was really high command you’re talking about top Scotland Yard. Every bit of information Anderson got on the murders came from Swanson.

And the most obvious interpretation is that the whole polish Jew story came from Swanson in the first place. Anderson reproduces it in his book, Swanson gets a copy of the book and thinks ‘he’s got that wrong and he’s got that wrong. So I can add this, and he makes his notes on it.

Now far be it from me to say that part of the marginalia might be forged, or is forged

I CANT SAY THAT AND I CANT PROVE IT. So it would be very wrong of me to go into print with it or definitely say that. All I can say is THERE ARE DOUBTS that are in my mind THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED. But for that very reason I didn’t put that in my book. If you read Scotland Yard investigates I’ve written a whole Chapter, and in fairness I have to say he had nothing to do with that, although he supported me in it, and thought that it was a very good argument, He agreed with it.

But I think I’ve presented a good counter argument for the Anderson Polish Jew theory. And bearing in mind of course that Anderson was the only person who believed in it.

End.

Well there it is. I must admit that I agree strongly with Stewart that Swanson as probably the origin of Anderson’s belief.

Clearly Stewart indicates that the Marginalia is genuine or at least that there is no proof that it is Not genuine, or that is my interpretation of what he says anyway, and clearly he says that ‘there are doubts in my mind that have not been answered”.

I would like to point out that I recorded at conference purely for personal fun and was hoping to make presents of the footage to the guest speakers I filmed. I’ve completed two speeches (MIKE and NEIL) but do not have the photos to input for Stewarts speech edit. Stewart never signed a release form for the recording of this footage and it could only ever be published with his express permission and I am more than happy to send him a DVD.

I really do think the argument about the Marginalia being a forgery is a waste of time. Especially as almost everyone I’ve spoken to on the subject believes Swanson wrote it.

However it is excellent to have a discussion on Anderson between Martin and Stewart. It’s the very reason why I hang around casebook. You really can learn so much when at its best.

Could I be so bold as to ask if there is any chance of Martin and Stewart discussing Anderson on a Pod cast? It really would be very exciting stuff.

Many thanks for your posts.

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

I would prefer Stewart's 'investigative' approach to your "scholarly" approach, without hesitation.

Stewart does not presume to know anything with regard to the provenance of the margin/end notes purportedly scribbled by Donald Swanson. You, on the other hand, presume to know a great deal regarding this matter.

For the record - and at the risk of revealing my dire lack of "scholarly training": I am inclined to believe that the margin/end notes purportedly written by Swanson are not of genuine provenance. But I do not presume to know that this is the case.

I am not impressed by your "scholarly" demeanor - it reeks a most pretentious air; and I am most unimpressed by your obvious presumption to know that the margin/end notes in question were in fact written by none other than Donald Sutherland Swanson. You don't know that to be the case !!! Period !!!

I can't read your mind (must be that lack of "scholarly training"); so your "obvious presumption to know", in this instance, must be attributed to speculation on my part. If you do in fact presume to know; then you are a fool !!!


Colin [ATTACH]2824[/ATTACH]

You can beleive in Ghosts, the Lock ness monster, 911 conspiracies, Diana was murdered by the Royal family, Lord Locan is alive and well and living in Cricklewood...James Maybrick wrote the Diary

Just dont ask the rest of us to by into such fantacies..

The marginalia..is genuine..anyone who says other wise should offer PROOF and seek that proof, not some personal religious, psychic, wishy washy self belief, I have a hunch, i tost a coin.

just a thought

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Ugh,your nose is going such a funny colour Jeff!
It was not only about politics and pensions that Winston Churchill ridiculed Anderson in parliament and referred to his pronouncements as more of "Anderson"s Fairy Tales".The man had become a complete liability with his endless fantasising.If this debate has been an example of scholarship then Charlie "s me aunt and Fanny "s me uncle!
-Can"t stop-must go and scribble out some marginalia!

oh and pssst---the onus of "proof "is on you mate---next thing you"ll be asking us to "prove" the world is flat!

[Chris]

Jeff

Thanks for posting your transcript of what Stewart Evans said at the conference. Obviously he expressed himself with considerable care.

Unfortunately, his careful statements have been represented here - through your offices and those of Martin - as "Stewart said at conference that there is no doubt the notes were by Swanson".

At least people can now see that he said no such thing.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ugh,your nose is going such a funny colour Jeff!

Wow you obviously have spies everywhere. Yes it has gotten rather sun burnt. That’s because I’ve been strapped halfway up a Sandstone Outcrop all weekend filming rock climbers. As I’ve said I make no claims to being a Scholar, but when it comes to good journalism I’m willing to risk life and limb.

It was not only about politics and pensions that Winston Churchill ridiculed Anderson in parliament and referred to his pronouncements as more of "Anderson"s Fairy Tales".The man had become a complete liability with his endless fantasising.If this debate has been an example of scholarship then Charlie "s me aunt and Fanny "s me uncle!
-Can"t stop-must go and scribble out some marginalia!

Clearly I’m not certain what to make of Anderson. He is a complex character. Who must be judged in his historical context? I don’t believe that I’ve offered any opinion on the matter so far, apart from asking Martin Fido and Stewart Evans their opinion. In which I am genuinely interested.

oh and pssst---the onus of "proof "is on you mate---next thing you"ll be asking us to "prove" the world is flat!

The onus of proof is on me?

NO IT IS NOT. I have done what any half decent journalist can do. I’ve done my research and asked questions of people with first hand knowledge of this matter. I have spoken and questioned those who met Jim Swanson in detail about the marginalia’s discovery.

Clearly no one has ever suggested to me that the Marginalia is a forgery.

Clearly the World is ROUND, it is you that is trying to suggest that it is FLAT.

It would be completely wrong of me to try and miss lead the public in anyway. If there was any evidence that he marginalia were a forgery then I believe it would have been presented by now. It hasn’t. The marginalia has been examined by experts and no one has claimed that any person, other than Donald Swanson created it.

You are all free to express ‘the THOMAS’ but the fact is that the only person who could have forged the marginalia is Jim Swanson. And clearly no one I have spoken to believes that he did. Martin Fido has outlined its provenance , it is impecable..

There is NO motive for a forgery, No logical time scale, no scientific evidence for a forgery, and no hand writing expert willing to claim it is a forgery. Its about as good as any historical document can be...

Much of our know history, is based on far less convincing evidence.

I’m sorry to use my favourite journo’ phrase again..

But if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck..It’s almost certainly a duck..

If you wish to make some silly claim that the Marginalia is a forgery , please take it to another thread, so that this thread can concentrate on the question

Did Anderson know?

Many thanks. Jeff

RE: Chris

I apologuise if you believe I have miss represented Stewart in the precice detail of what he said..

I asked an honest question and believe I got an honest reply..

There is nothing in that reply which suggests to me that the marginalia is a forgery..

Its quite black and white as far as I am concerned..

Either The Marginalia is a forgery (or at least part of it)

or

It is not a forgery..

There is no inbetween ground on such matters..

Its a DUCK

[Natalie Severn]

Testing

[String]

On the subject of evidence. What's the best way of approaching new evidence?

If you want to prove the veracity or non-veracity of some new evidence do you regard the evidence as suspect from the start and try to prove it false or indeed true.
Maybe you should take the evidence at face value and try to prove it's true or indeed false?

Or maybe go in with an open mind and see where the evidence goes?

The open mind method is the most attractive one imho but unfortunately people are human beings with human weaknesses and whether we like it or not most of us come to an opinion on seeing something for the first time.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jeff,
Yes, I am a little sceptical about these items ,I have to confess, and I have been since I heard of their first appearance in 1988,the year of the centenary- after their "sleep" of a hundred years.
But what puzzled me most perhaps, was not what I began to hear about discepencies in pencil colouring or letter shape between the marginalia and the end notes,as described by several observers,but rather the curious choice of newspaper in which to publish this sensational news.
The "News of the World" is not the sort of newspaper which most of us would depend on for an assurance of fair testing for example. In fact it would be difficult to find a paper with a more prurient reputation and an apparent disregard for observing any "niceties" of publication .
With regard to the onus of proof.The great scholar,Professor Hugh Roper, authenticated the fake "Hitler Diaries"which were published in the Sunday Times.Was it for those who doubted the authenticity to take them "on trust" and "prove" the transparent forgery? No.Ofcourse not.
The burden of proof always resides with those who make the claim-so it is with any document at all that relates to the Ripper case.
Best
Norma

[robhouse]

Hello String,

I think this is a good question and a relevant one to this discussion. In my opinion, if you ONLY try to point out the flaws in a certain theory regarding the veracity of a piece of evidence, you may never consider possibilities that would show something may actually be true. This is the case, fundamentally with Anderson's statement. Anderson said, bluntly, "we knew who Jack the Ripper was". And Swanson essentially corroborated Anderson, saying "it was Kosminski"

No one accepted this. Almost no one even ever CONSIDERED this might have been true. It was essentially dismissed outright as boasting, bad memory, confusion etc. A few errors in Swanson and Macnaghten's claims were noted, and the theory was dead in the water. There was little further exploration to try to see if evidence could be found to support Anderson's claim. It was just like "OK, Anderson was wrong because x, y, z" and that was it.

This has been remarkably unproductive in my opinion.

Almost every ripperologist is going on the assumption that Anderson was wrong, and just working to build a case to support the falseness of Anderson's claim.

I am essentially doing the opposite, for better or worse. I am assuming that Anderson was correct, and trying to see if I can find evidence to support Kozminski as the Ripper. Trying to come up with a theory that explains most of the anomalies of the case.

Some might say that this is no objective, and I admit it is true, but what I am doing is the same essentially as the scientific method. Propose a thesis, then try to back it up. The thesis is Anderson was right, Kozminski was the Ripper. The results so far are inconclusive.

But at least I am trying. Most people on here just shoot it down without much consideration. How productive is that? It kind of disgusts me actually.

Rob H

[Stewart P Evans]

Off Target

I think this is a good question and a relevant one to this discussion. In my opinion, if you ONLY try to point out the flaws in a certain theory regarding the veracity of a piece of evidence, you may never consider possibilities that would show something may actually be true. This is the case, fundamentally with Anderson's statement. Anderson said, bluntly, "we knew who Jack the Ripper was". And Swanson essentially corroborated Anderson, saying "it was Kosminski"
No one accepted this. Almost no one even ever CONSIDERED this might have been true. It was essentially dismissed outright as boasting, bad memory, confusion etc. A few errors in Swanson and Macnaghten's claims were noted, and the theory was dead in the water. There was little further exploration to try to see if evidence could be found to support Anderson's claim. It was just like "OK, Anderson was wrong because x, y, z" and that was it.
This has been remarkably unproductive in my opinion.
Almost every ripperologist is going on the assumption that Anderson was wrong, and just working to build a case to support the falseness of Anderson's claim.
I am essentially doing the opposite, for better or worse. I am assuming that Anderson was correct, and trying to see if I can find evidence to support Kozminski as the Ripper. Trying to come up with a theory that explains most of the anomalies of the case.
Some might say that this is no objective, and I admit it is true, but what I am doing is the same essentially as the scientific method. Propose a thesis, then try to back it up. The thesis is Anderson was right, Kozminski was the Ripper. The results so far are inconclusive.
But at least I am trying. Most people on here just shoot it down without much consideration. How productive is that? It kind of disgusts me actually.
Rob H

Rob, with all due respect I feel that your comments are a little off target here. Forget what Anderson says of his Polish Jew suspect and forget what is written in the annotations in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book. Kosminski still remains a valid suspect, like Druitt, as his name appears in Macnaghten's report of 23 February 1894. For many years Ostrog did too, but research by Phil Sugden finally revealed that he was incarcerated in France at the time of the murders. As a valid suspect research on Kosminski is guaranteed to continue even if Swanson and Anderson's writing are dismissed.

All the past attacks made on what Macnaghten said about Druitt as a suspect haven't stopped those Ripperologists interested in researching him doing so. It certainly hasn't stopped Andy Spallek pursuing a similar course on Druitt to yours on Kosminski - and you certainly are not the only one carrying out detailed research on Kosminski. You must expect any claim that a specific person was the Ripper to be attacked, and indeed they are. And what people are attacking, in the main, is the simply impossible claim that Anderson made that the identity of the Ripper was 'a definitely ascertained fact.' Indeed it is the impossibility of Anderson's claim that brings so much critical comment on it. Not least of all because there was no witness to any Ripper murder so how could it be claimed, unequivocally, that any witness had 'a good view of him.' It is not evidence, it is hearsay and opinion (or personal belief), if it has been factually recorded.

There will always be those who accept the flaws in a theory and do not agree with it, and consequently do not pursue it. On the other hand there will always be those, like your good self, who disagree and continue to research all possibilities. And so it should be, otherwise everyone would be researching the same suspect and denying all the rest. You only have to read Anderson's writings to see that he was a blatant braggart and name dropper, surely this is obvious? He is his own worst enemy in the way he has presented his claims to the world. He invites criticism. How on earth can you say that the Swanson/Anderson 'theory' is dead in the water? A mere glance at these boards shows that to be untrue. It has its supporters and it has its detractors. So does every theory and every claim with regard to these murders and the unknown murderer.

So it is no more incorrect for those to claim that Anderson was wrong than it is for you to claim that he was right. For goodness sake opposing views are healthy and ensure the continuance of research in a balanced way. Often those striving to prove something wrong come across something that in fact does the opposite and supports it. For my own part I have given my reasons for the doubts I have raised and it matters not a jot to me whether the 'marginalia' is finally proved to be perfectly authentic or otherwise. But what some seem to react violently to is the fact that they are questioned at all - and this is especially worrying when they have never been properly examined but were blindly accepted as totally correct for many years.

I was rather disturbed, and a little worried, when I read your words "Most people on here just shoot it down without much consideration. How productive is that? It kind of disgusts me actually." You seem to be taking things a little too personally.

[Jeff Leahy]

See, this is what you get, when scholars, writers, drunks, investigators, and observers indulge in suspect based research in an effort to support their own favoured 'it were im wot did it'.

Yes yes yes..I beleive in Lawerance of Arabia it was refered to as 'the vice's of old men'.

They'll argue - with good logic, but good logic is like good washing powder, you put it in the machine and it makes a lot of soap - and they'll twist and turn, arguing that their particular piece of paper is as sound as a pound, because they say so, whilst the other says his particular paper is as sound as a pound because he says so... and then by innuendo, rather than straight forward shooting from the hip, they'll accuse each other of owning a fake document, but you just sort of know if they swapped documents and then owned the others then they would support whatever or whichever document they owned.
It's not about fact, but rather possession.
To the devil with the lot of you.

Its a big problem isn't it AP? You no longer believe in anything do you?. Of course you are correct. Some of us are looking for answers and we have an angle. We are looking for the true identity of jtR.

Better to be saying something and too believe in some thing, than criticise, disillussion and follow nialistic self distruction...tis time. tis time.

The boy has nailed his colour's to the mast and he's out there doin' something..he's raised his flag and I say go boy go go!!!! find those missing links..

Personally I dont trust anyone without an angle. I dont believe that any GOOD came from knowone without an opinion or an angle...Tis the stuff great art is made of....opinion.....that it be.

And yes, I seriously question the authenticity of any document, not in the public domain since it was written or produced, that advances the ambitions of any author... it is most likely a fake or a forgery.

Ye can question Cap'in..but for once your sails are only full of your emptie sinicism...

Join us now and feel young again...ahhh!

Pirate Pirate x

[robhouse]

Stewart,

I am sorry I perhaps expressed that a bit too strongly. But I have to admit, it sometimes seems to me that the discussion of Kozminski is getting a bit stale. I feel that it is time to move forward. But essentially the discussion re: Kozminski is an argument across battle lines that were drawn over 20 years ago.

When I posted the text of newspaper articles indicating a possible link between the Batty Street lodger story and Kozminski... (which says the guy who dropped off the bloody shirts was a ladies tailor) that got almost zero response on the boards. No suggestions, feedback, ideas for follow up research, nothing really. This is the sort of thing that discourages me, and makes me feel like this so-called debate is just pointless, going back and forth over and over. It just does not seem progressive at all to me. I am sorry if I sound exasperated by all this.

RH

[Jeff Leahy]

Not least of all because there was no witness to any Ripper murder so how could it be claimed, unequivocally, that any witness had 'a good view of him.' It is not evidence, it is hearsay and opinion (or personal belief), if it has been factually recorded.

I'm sorry Stewart but we don't know this as fact. There is no record. We can not know if Anderson and Swanson had more information than survives to the present day..they almost certainly did have more information.

There will always be those who accept the flaws in a theory and do not agree with it, and consequently do not pursue it. On the other hand there will always be those, like your good self, who disagree and continue to research all possibilities. And so it should be, otherwise everyone would be researching the same suspect and denying all the rest.

Yes and Rob has the need for some support in his quest..it is impressive.help him.

You only have to read Anderson's writings to see that he was a blatant braggart and name dropper, surely this is obvious? He is his own worst enemy in the way he has presented his claims to the world. He invites criticism. How on earth can you say that the Swanson/Anderson 'theory' is dead in the water? A mere glance at these boards shows that to be untrue. It has its supporters and it has its detractors. So does every theory and every claim with regard to these murders and the unknown murderer.

I'm sorry stewart but it is not clear to everyone. You and Martin Fido clearly have differences on Anderson..I know I'm not an expert, I don't claim to be, but if you genuinely believe this? go on podcast with Martin and debate the question openly? respect to you both.

So it is no more incorrect for those to claim that Anderson was wrong than it is for you to claim that he was right. For goodness sake opposing views are healthy and ensure the continuance of research in a balanced way. Often those striving to prove something wrong come across something that in fact does the opposite and supports it. For my own part I have given my reasons for the doubts I have raised and it matters not a jot to me whether the 'marginalia' is finally proved to be perfectly authentic or otherwise. But what some seem to react violently to is the fact that they are questioned at all - and this is especially worrying when they have never been properly examined but were blindly accepted as totally correct for many years.

No one has any objection to anybody questioning? The present situation is that most experts believe it is genuine...if you have proposals for further tests..make it so..and please can I bring a camera? the fact is DUCK.

I was rather disturbed, and a little worried, when I read your words "Most people on here just shoot it down without much consideration. How productive is that? It kind of disgusts me actually." You seem to be taking things a little too personally.

It happens Stewart...you do it all the time...however dispite this we all love and respect YOU...Rob is going out on a limb with this, he has spent years researching his facts, to my knowledge he is still researching..I dont care if you attack me..(who am i anyway)... but please give Rob your support in his research even if you dont think..kosminski ...did it....you of all people must understand his position..

Kosminski and Druitt are the last suspects.

Well I think thats just about crossed everyone off my Xmas card list...

Good night all and good luck Rob

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Stewart,

I am sorry I perhaps expressed that a bit too strongly. But I have to admit, it sometimes seems to me that the discussion of Kozminski is getting a bit stale. I feel that it is time to move forward. But essentially the discussion re: Kozminski is an argument across battle lines that were drawn over 20 years ago.

When I posted the text of newspaper articles indicating a possible link between the Batty Street lodger story and Kozminski... (which says the guy who dropped off the bloody shirts was a ladies tailor) that got almost zero response on the boards. No suggestions, feedback, ideas for follow up research, nothing really. This is the sort of thing that discourages me, and makes me feel like this so-called debate is just pointless, going back and forth over and over. It just does not seem progressive at all to me. I am sorry if I sound exasperated by all this.

RH

Rob your ideas are the greatest on the identity of JTR in thirty years..

Don't let the old guard knock you back, they should ALL be supporting you more and I'm not just refering to Stewart..

and of course I'm also congratulating your team/fellow researchers.

Good night all

Jeff

[Dan Norder]

Anderson said, bluntly, "we knew who Jack the Ripper was".

And he was the official most far removed from the actual investigation. Other people in much better positions to know made very clear statements that contradict Anderson.

And Swanson essentially corroborated Anderson, saying "it was Kosminski"

Swanson's notes added extra information to Anderson's story. We don't know that Swanson himself believed the story, and if he did the story was still contradicted by others. And please get the quote right. Swanson said "Kosminski was the suspect," not that he was the Ripper.

Almost no one even ever CONSIDERED this might have been true.

And that's complete and utter nonsense. You are basically just trying to paint anyone who looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion different from yours as someone who didn't approach it with an open mind.

If what Anderson said was actually true, we'd expect the other police to agree. They didn't. Instead of trying to turn this into a "why doesn't anyone believe Anderson?" whinge fest, maybe we should be asking why you refuse to believe what Abberline and Macnaghten and Moore (and so forth and so on) said.

Almost every ripperologist is going on the assumption that Anderson was wrong, and just working to build a case to support the falseness of Anderson's claim.

To the contrary, most Ripperologists are going on the assumption that any claim that the case was solved should be matched with evidence which would support that instead of evidence that shows just the opposite. That's what leads many people to the conclusion that Anderson was wrong. Conclusions are different from assumptions.

what I am doing is the same essentially as the scientific method.

You can't be serious. The scientific method does not include assuming you are right, ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your desired conclusion and deciding that anyone who disagrees with you is only doing so because they are biased.