Did Anderson Know

[robhouse]

Dan

This is such an idiotic post that I was not going to even respond to it, but I changed my mind.

Whether or not Anderson was "removed from the investigation" as you say, he was still head of CID, and the man ultimately held responsible for solving the case. Are you truly suggesting that Anderson would be out of the loop and not know about the case? In any case, Swanson was in dirct charge of the day to day running of the case, and was the one person who would see "every paper, every document, every report [and] every telegram" related to the case. It is probable that Swanson coordinated the identification, etc. Who are you referring to when you say "Other people in much better positions to know"?

Incidentally, I have never said that I think Kozminski was the Ripper. I said, I am conducting my research based on the premise that what Anderson said was true (more or less), and that he believed that Kozminski was the Ripper. That is the thesis I am trying to research, to see if it can be supported by additional evidence. I believe Kozminski MAY HAVE BEEN the Ripper. I believe he is a strong suspect. OK, got that?

Yes, you are correct Swanson did not say Kozminski was the Ripper, but your quote "And please get the quote right" is a bit childish. I have a 140 page document on Kozminski and I can dump any accurate quote you want on this thread. Swanson essentially as I said corroborated Anderson's story about a suspect being identified, and provided additional information about the identification. He did not dispute Anderson's claim that the identity was a definetly ascertained fact. But I think his statement is a clear corroboration that Kozminski was an important suspect. Swanson's personal belief as to whether this suspect was the Ripper is not known, but the tone of the marginalia suggests that he also believed he was a strong suspect.

"And that's complete and utter nonsense." Dan look, I wrote this post fast OK. I am trying to paint a GENERAL picture here. I am saying in general, the majority of the research on Kozminski is based on the premise that Anderson was wrong, and that it is not really constructive, because so few people are willing to entertain the possibility that he may have been right. This is without a doubt, in my opinion, the current state of affairs in Ripperology regarding Kozminski. Your idiotic post here proves my point.

"You can't be serious. The scientific method does not include assuming you are right, ignoring evidence"

What I said is you propose a thesis, and then try to see if you can find evidence that supports this thesis.

This is totally frustrating and pointless.

RH

[jmenges]

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.

With all due respect, Jeff, SPE knows that there is an open invitation for him to be on the podcast whenever he has the time and inclination, please do not use my podcast to badger him.

The last thing I, and it's safe to assume SPE, and Martin Fido would want to use a joint appearance on the podcast for is to debate each other.

Thanks,

JM

[robhouse]

In case I did not make it clear, let me state my opinion of Anderson.

I believe that Anderson thought he knew who the Ripper was. I do not agree that this was as he says "a definitely ascertained fact". I just think Anderson strongly believed it for whatever reason.

I also think that Swanson believed Kozminski was a strong suspect. Whether or not Swanson shared Anderson's belief that Kozminski was Jack the Ripper I do not know.

I also believe that the CID had probably some evidence against Kozminski, or maybe not even hard evidence, maybe just suggestions of his guilt, or circumstantial evidence, maybe statements. But I do not believe that this was sufficient for conviction, and I believe Anderson and Swanson knew this. I believe the identification, for whatever reason, was inconclusive. Probably because the witness did not get a good look at the guy, it was dark, and he would not be able to make a positive identification. And that "witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind" because he was unsure, or to put it more strongly, not sure at all.

Got that? Is that better Dan, thats an exact quote there.

[Jeff Leahy]

With all due respect, Jeff, SPE knows that there is an open invitation for him to be on the podcast whenever he has the time and inclination, please do not use my podcast to badger him.

The last thing I, and it's safe to assume SPE, and Martin Fido would want to use a joint appearance on the podcast for is to debate each other.

Thanks,

JM

My apologuise Jonathon,

Clearly I was not trying to cause any offence to you, Stewrat or Martin,

I have very much enjoyed Martin on podcats and having film Stewart live I'm very much aware what a great public proformer Stewart is, also.

My challange was mean't out of selffish interest in worthy dabate..no more than that...

Whatever your opinion of me Stewart... I hope you realize that I am genuine in saying this would be an excellent medium for you and everyone would benefit from such a discussion...

Enough said, tail between legs..

Good Night

Jeff x

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

And her comes Norder with hyperbol and hubris. Possably the most bias brain on casebook critisising people with something to say for saying something of interest...

I've read back through your post three times now and apart from hot air I havn't a clue what you are trying to say or what your position is, as usual..

something about scientific position, as if you of all people you would understand what that means????

Norder attacks Rob House. At least I can go to bed laughing..

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

I
I also think that Swanson believed Kozminski was a strong suspect. Whether or not Swanson shared Anderson's belief that Kozminski was Jack the Ripper I do not know.

Hi Rob

Stewart has remained fairly silent on this matter (perhaps my presence does not help) however, clearly at conferance he suggested that Swanson may have been the source of Anderson's theories, please check my transcript..conferance 2008.

And I for one, I agree with Stewart on that piont..surely Anderson was following Swanson..and that is why the marginalia was created..

It just makes sense..

Jeff

[robhouse]

Thanks Jeff, that makes sense to me also.

RH

[Dan Norder]

This is such an idiotic post that I was not going to even respond to it, but I changed my mind.

[...]

This is totally frustrating and pointless.

RH

I can see how someone who thinks anyone who disagrees with him must be an idiot would be frustrated when people don't just accept every wild claim he says as if it were perfectly sound and self-evident. Based upon your stated strategy of assuming that Anderson was right and your unwillingness to understand why most people think that's not a good assumption, I can also see why you would think it is pointless to post here.

Reasonable and intelligent people can disagree with each other. Nobody in this field agrees with everything anyone else in the field believes. (Well, except for certain people whose strategy seems solely to be supporting a certain author no matter what he said... even before knowing what it was that was said. I have one of those types in my ignore list, and I see from all the blocked posts in this thread that he's yammering up a storm here, which is not surprising.) Disagreements are fine, but if you start with the assumption that the vast majority of the field -- including most of the well-respected authors on the topic -- disagree with you because they just didn't bother to consider something as a possibility, the problem is not with everyone else, it's with you.

Perhaps you'll find the field more enjoyable once you acknowledge and accept that basic fact. With the attitude you express it's no wonder your posts don't get the attention you think they deserve.

[Jeff Leahy]

(Well, except for certain people whose strategy seems solely to be supporting a certain author no matter what he said... even before knowing what it was that was said. I have one of those types in my ignore list, and I see from all the blocked posts in this thread that he's yammering up a storm here, which is not surprising.)

Disagreements are fine, but if you start with the assumption that the vast majority of the field -- including most of the well-respected authors on the topic -- disagree with you because they just didn't bother to consider something as a possibility, the problem is not with everyone else, it's with you.

So who are these authors Dan..why dont you name them???

Because I do a flick through the greatest JtR authors of all time and I cant see any of them supporting the 'Norder'

Perhaps you'll find the field more enjoyable once you acknowledge and accept that basic fact. With the attitude you express it's no wonder your posts don't get the attention you think they deserve.

Why dont you just stop the personal self envy of what Rob has acheived..

You have given the feild of Ripperology nothing anyone can remeber..were as Rob will be remebered in History..if I have anything to do with it!

Norder go chow your bone on another thread, there are plenty and your worthless opinion is not required here

Pirate

[robhouse]

Dan,

Clearly you still do not understand my point, and it is probably pointless to continue, but I will try again.

Let me be even more plain... do I accept that Anderson could have been boasting, lying, confused, wrong... any or all of the above? YES I DO!

OK, got that so far?

However:
(Now, see if you can wrap your head around this... concentrate.)

My thesis (so to speak) is based on the assumption that Anderson's statement is true in as far as he believed it (I know this is tough to follow), and I am conducting research based on that premise to see if I can find facts to support Anderson's claim. If I can, great. If Anderson's claim can be disproved, fine. I have not yet found any definitive answers.

Let me give you another example... I also assume Macnaghten's statement that Kozminski was entered into an asylum in March 1889 is just an error. Could this be an incorrect assumption? Yes, of course. Then why do I assume this? Because Kozminski was not entered into an asylum in March 1889. Can I explain why he made this error? No. Is there a possible explanation? Maybe. Does Macnaghten's statement PROVE that the Kozminski he referred to is not Aaron Kozminski? No. Is it possible that Macnaghten's statement is correct? Yes.

One more example:

Assumption: 2 + 2 = 5.

Is this wrong? Doesnt matter... that is the assumption.

So based on this assumption, is (2 + 2) x 2 = 10?

Yes it is.

If you want to debate that 2 + 2 = 5 go ahead. You can also debate that 2 + 2 = 4 is true. Doesnt matter to what I am doing.

Of course 2 + 2 = 5 is a bad example, because it is clearly wrong, but this sort of assumption is used in proofs all the time. Something is assumed to be true, then further things are extrapolated from this. If the original assumption can be PROVED, then the later extrapolations are also proved, assuming there are not mistakes.

[robhouse]

And if you want to debate actual specifics, I am happy to do that, but I notice that when I have challenged your unsupported claims in the past you just run away.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=25955#post25955

RH

[Stewart P Evans]

My Business

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.

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

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.

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.

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

There seems little point in engaging in debate with someone who so often spouts patent nonsense - but here we go again. First off what I choose to do or not to do is my business and I shall thank you not to suggest what I should do.

We do 'know it as a fact' that there was no witness to an actual murder. No matter what you or any other fantasist may wish to believe. I suggest that you re-read the official reports that have survived - all the overall reports are there, but perhaps you don't understand them.

I think that Rob does get some excellent 'support in his quest' - certainly more than I did in the first twenty plus years that I was researching the subject.

Yes, it is clear that Anderson boasted, name-dropped and enhanced his own importance - if you deny that you haven't read his books and articles. Martin has his own ideas and I have mine. I have known him personally for 18 years and we have had many discussions together. At a personal level I consider him a well-read and interesting person and, differences on this subject apart, I am quite fond of him. But do not suggest that I should debate openly with him - it would produce fireworks - but perhaps that is what you are interested in. Do not suggest to me that I should 'go on' any podcast.

Yes, people do have objections to certain questions being asked - again you obviously don't read and internalise what is in front of you. Who are the 'most experts' you are quoting? I have no 'proposals for further testing' - how naive you are. It is up to those who make grandiose claims and deductions from these scribbles to get them tested if they wish. And, as I have stated in the past, it matters not if they are or are not genuine - it doesn't alter the fact that they don't make sense and their content is questionable. I have always written from the presumption that they are genuine.

Rob is a very nice guy and I like him a lot. He is not going out on a limb, he is pursuing his own personal 'Holy Grail' of Ripperology and is doing a fine job on a valid suspect. But he should not get upset, as he apparently does, by the fact that everyone does not agree with him. I have always given him support, as I should hope he would tell you himself. I have always supported all who have asked me for assistance - more often than not these people had views different to mine, but I still helped them as that is as it should be. What I cannot abide is dishonesty and prevarication.

Finally who the hell do you think you are to advise me? Please insert your head where the sun doesn't shine and leave me alone.

[Stewart P Evans]

Intention

I have every intention of responding to Martin Fido's post #139 above, but I do have other things in my life than these boards. Martin has a rather annoying habit of appearing on the boards 'once in a blue moon', making controversial statements then disappearing for a long time leaving any response hanging in the air. I do understand he has other commitments but how long does it take to make the odd post or two?

[Jeff Leahy]

[/QUOTE]There seems little point in engaging in debate with someone who so often spouts patent nonsense - but here we go again. First off what I choose to do or not to do is my business and I shall thank you not to suggest what I should do.[/QUOTE]

I made the suggestion because I believe that open debate on 'podcat' is less confrontational than written exchanges on casebook, and out of a genuine interest in the subject. If you choose not to, of course that is your business. I just thought it an interesting idea, and I am a little puzzled why you would take offence at a suggestion. which is all that it was. And made in good spirit.

We do 'know it as a fact' that there was no witness to an actual murder. No matter what you or any other fantasist may wish to believe. I suggest that you re-read the official reports that have survived - all the overall reports are there, but perhaps you don't understand them.

Are you trying to say that all the statements taken by the police have survived and that all the known surviving reports are all that ever existed?

Just to remind everyone what is said in the A to Z. 'If Schwartz is to be believed, and the police report of his statement casts no doubt on it, it follows if they (Schwartz and Police Constable William Smith) are describing different men that the man Schwartz saw and discribed is the more probable of the two to be the murderer."

Yes, it is clear that Anderson boasted, name-dropped and enhanced his own importance - if you deny that you haven't read his books and articles.

I'm not denying anything. I dont beleive I've made any comment on Anderson what so ever. I have simply pointed out that there appears to be differences between your position on Anderson and Martins.

Martin has his own ideas and I have mine. I have known him personally for 18 years and we have had many discussions together. At a personal level I consider him a well-read and interesting person and, differences on this subject apart, I am quite fond of him. But do not suggest that I should debate openly with him - it would produce fireworks - but perhaps that is what you are interested in. Do not suggest to me that I should 'go on' any podcast.

NO. I was interested in discussion on Anderson and why you have both drawn different conclusions about the man. I was aware that you are both men with mutual respect for each other and thus saw no harm in the suggestion. I appologuie if you have taken any offence. Clearly none was meant.

[/QUOTE]Yes, people do have objections to certain questions being asked - again you obviously don't read and internalise what is in front of you. Who are the 'most experts' you are quoting? I have no 'proposals for further testing' - how naive you are. It is up to those who make grandiose claims and deductions from these scribbles to get them tested if they wish. And, as I have stated in the past, it matters not if they are or are not genuine - it doesn't alter the fact that they don't make sense and their content is questionable. I have always written from the presumption that they are genuine.[/QUOTE]

I assume by people you are refering to Martin?

The title of this thread is " did Anderson Know" and the piont of discussion was..

"Okay, is it now the standard beleive that Anderson fabricated the eyewitness and that Swanson's notes in his copy of Andersons book is a forgery?

Thats what i have been discussing. Like you I have always worked from the Position that the Marginalia is genuine, because I cant see any reason to assume otherwise. However I'm not certain on Anderson and I'm interested in opinion on that subject.

[/QUOTE]Rob is a very nice guy and I like him a lot. He is not going out on a limb, he is pursuing his own personal 'Holy Grail' of Ripperology and is doing a fine job on a valid suspect. [/QUOTE]

Then we are in agreement.

[/QUOTE] What I cannot abide is dishonesty and prevarication.[/QUOTE]

Where pray has any such thing taken place?

[/QUOTE] Finally who the hell do you think you are to advise me? Please insert your head where the sun doesn't shine and leave me alone.[/QUOTE]

I made an honest and genuine suggestion about a 'podcast' not pistols at dawn...I am however someone who has purchased your book and I am genuinely interested in the differences of opinion between yourself and Martin Fido..I'm doing what I do for a living...I'm asking questions..and i'm trying to do that as politely as possible. There is NO prevarication on my part. Since when has honest enquiry and questioning of the 'arguement' become an offence on casebook?

Jeff

[Natalie Severn]

Just to correct a few falsehoods.
Like Stewart I have met Rob House recently and found him to be a very nice person and I was greatly impressed with the research he has carried out to date.I am interested in Kosminski as a suspect.I have been to Carter Street in the City of London near St Paul"s ,where Jacob Cohen had an address and researched its immediate environs-I walked around Cheapside where we know from the court case where Kosminski walked his unmuzzled dog in 1889,around the Leadenhall Market area where muzzles could be bought,down Leadenhall Street to Mitre Square in Watkin"s footsteps.
I am actually quite open minded about Kosminski,but the evidence so far indicates to me a man who ,though undoubtedly odd in his behaviour,was an unlikely Ripper.We shall see and I for one am eager to see if Rob can turn up evidence that makes a stronger case.
Likewise with Druitt,who Andy Spallek has done sterling research into recently, that is concurrent with Rob"s quest for Kosminski, and just as thorough and painstaking and there are a number of other authors and researchers looking into other suspects with similar zeal.
However,I find it more than unhelpful to hear Rob and Jeff dismissing Dan with such vilification.The role Dan plays in detecting and debunking unproven assertion ,myth , false claims etc is second to none on these boards and I for one would be sorely disappointed if he ever stopped being vilgilante in his quest for the actual truth,elusive as that truth may be,rather than what people wish to present as the truth and clearly wish the truth could be.
Norma