Did Anderson Know

[jason_c]

We do have some sort of corroboration of Swanson and Anderson from Sims.

1907

"The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder."

[Roy Corduroy]

I said the Polish Jew theory was like a cryptogram. Well, up close, it is. And that's as it should be when subjected to rigorous research. But going back 20 years, I was not studying the old murders at the time. I recall reading a magazine article about the new theory which, based on police memoirs, told of a mentally disturbed young man who lived in the district. Instantly one could see this type of approach was light years ahead of, say...three men in a pumpkin.

Roy

[robhouse]

Natalie,

It is not my intention to dismiss Dan Norder with villification... I just posted something about the process of research, in response to a question someone asked, and Dan pounced on me like a rabid hyena with a rather mean-spirited attack on what I'd said. And I dont take that kind of crap.

Whaddya want from me?

Rob

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

So - whu don't we nail it all down to one single paragraph.

Did Anderson know?
Of course he didn't.
He THOUGHT he knew. And that's quite a difference.

All the best

[Dan Norder]

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.

Yes, OK, that's a particularly deceptive way of describing that situation. The claims were supported, and if you'd read any book other than ones pushing Kosminski as a suspect (assuming you didn't and just assuming it was "idiotic" because you, as you admit, base of all your understanding of the case on the premise that Anderson was right) you'd know that.

Sometimes I don't see posts (the "New Posts" link only seems to nab last posts since you've been on any page on the site, not just since you last clicked it) and sometimes I don't have time. You can pretend all you want that that's "running away" if it makes you feel better about yourself, but maybe someday you'll grow up and dispense with that kind of nonsense.

[Jeff Leahy]

Just to stay on thread for the moment.. I think it important to remind ourselves why it is generally believed that the marginalia is genuine..so I will re-post Martins February post in full.

Thankfully Martin took the time to explain his position in some detail and I beleive it relivant to the current discussion.

It is a position I whole heartedly support. So thank you Martin. I took the liberty of adding some spaces.

Pirate

fido
11th February 2007, 02:04 PM

Hearing, with regret, that Grey Hunter was leaving the boards again, I came back for a quick scan to see why. I hope it was nothing to do with this thread, which seems to have been conducted with proper decorum. But I note that I'm referred to (critically,I infer), and the A-Z is called in question at various points. The new edition of A-Z is not, I think, a proper place to get into controversial responsive arguments, so I'm taking a little ill-spared time to explain here why we said (and I still maintain, without committing my fellow-authors) that the genuineness of the Swanson marghinalia as the work of Donald Sutherland Swanson is clear beyond a peradventure.
Three elements have to be considered in assessing the reliability of a document: its provenance; its physical nature; its contents.

The provenance of the Swanson marghinalia is impeccable. It passed from Swanson to his daughter on his death, and from her to her nephews when she died. They immediately offered the information to the News of the World and accepted a cheque for seventy-five pounds, after which, to their frustration,the information was never published. In 1987, seeing press reports of renewed interest in the Ripper case, Jim Swanson very honourably requested permission from the News of the World to make the notes public, and on receiving it showed the book free of charge to the Daily Telegraph's (then) reporter Charles Nevin. No member of the Swanson family has ever been suspected or accused of any sort of jiggery-pokery of any kind. None has ever attempted to profit seriously by the notes - the cheque from the News of the World was not of a size to invite forgery or tamperinig by people in perfectly satisfactory financial circumstances. So any suggestion that the notes were by anyone but DSS has to postulate a manipulator or forger who either gained secret access to the Swanson family bookshelves and left a set of notes in the volume to await detection, or was a member of the family acting absolutely uncharacteristically. Since Grey Hunter and Dr Davies have fascinatingly revealed that the endpaper notes were written in a different pencil at a different time from the notes in the margins of the text, we must assume that the endpaper (later) notes would be the definite forgery and the marginal notes might or might not be genuine workof DSS. And in that case we also have to assume a forger who takes as information from the published matter on the Ripper the name 'Kosminski', and nothing else at all. I submit that these postulations are so implauiable that no serious historian would give them the light of day. It is what we mean by calling a provenance impeccable. By contrast, when I first talked with Robert Smith about the Maybrick Diary I asked him what its provenance was, and he replied sadly, "About as bad as possible." And that indeed sums up the sorry story of 'Got it from a deceased drinking companion who wouldn't tell me what it was or where he got it from.' (This was before we heard about Ann Graham's infamous cupboard). That provenance invited suspicion immediately.

The physical state of the notes then becomes the next consideration. The discovery that they were written on different occasions and with different pencils is indeed fascinating. But it is not incompatible with Jim Swanson's memory of his grandfather (as told to me): that in his retirement the old man spent a lot of time in a greenhouse or potting shed - (I can't remember precisely) - tying fishing flies and 'writing', by which was meant, it was explained, reading and annotating his books. A previous contributor to this thread has noted seeing just such similar marginalia in another volume belonging to DSS. Thus far the physical status is matching the provenance and offers nothing particularly difficult to accept, since many of us who read our books more than once and make occasional notes in them may have additional or second thoughts and note these too. And the scenario even helps to explain the slightly puzzling syntax of the first sentence on the endpaper, which reads initially like a direct continuation from the marginal note, but then apears to be instead a continuation into the second endpaper sentence.

fido cont...

And what about Swanson's handwriting? Well, Grey Hunter and I have seen a good deal of it on the Scotland Yard files: it sounds as though Dr Davies (like Richard Totty earlier) only saw one sample for comparison purposes. Swanson's handwriting is reasonably distinctive. There is, in fact, no one else leaving minutes and memoranda on the files with whom one would easily confuse it. The initials D.S.S. are appended to many of his memos. And they are manifestly formed in exactly the same way whenever written and exactly the same way as the initials in the endpaper notes
[A brief note on document examinartion. I have some training in paleography (the decipherment of old handwritings): it was a compulsory component in the Oxford postgraduate degree B.Litt in the days when I took it. A vital stage is to look at each individual letter to see how it is formed. For the purposes of deciphement this is done in the hope that a letter in a legible word (where, say, the legible letters Sw nson offer the certainty that the illegible letter is an a) and then seeing whether an illegible letter in an undecipherable word is formed in the same way. A glance at a facsimile of the Lusk letter will show anyone how this functions. Look at every i and o in the letter: then look at the address 'Dear Sor'. It is obvious that the writer wrote and intended 'Sor' and not 'Sir'. If you have read (say) Lovett's offensive comedy of Irishness 'Handy Andy', you will then see that 'Sor', 'prasarved' and 'Mishter' combine to propose a silly 'stage' brogue, as though Irishmen wrote a phonetic imitation of their accent. Now, as Grey Hunter rightly says, a document examiner's opinion is only his opinion, and the badness of some document examiners is revealed by one who, some years ago, wrote an analytical commentary on the Lusk letter, yet trabscribed 'Sir'. With that point given, I end the methodological digression and return to Swanson.]

A casual glance indicates that the hand and initials appear to be Swanson's, as familiarized in MEPO files. A character-by-character inspection reveals no discrepancy in the letter formations. Therefore, any proposal of tampering now has to postulate a highly skilled forger capable of making an expert imitation of DSS's hand. (This is a much more difficult job than convincingly disguising one's own hand. Haigh the acid bath murderer who forged powers of attorney with his victims' 'signatures' was a far more accomplished forger than Madeleine Smith, acquitted of poisoning her discarded lover, though she had very adroitly addressed her secret correspondence to him in a variety of apparently completely different hands). Adding this to the provenance leads us into the conclusion that the unlikelihood of the notes being by anyone other than DSS is so great that one may safely put it beyond a peradventure.

Since the content is mysterious, containing strange errors of fact (Kosmiski died soon after entering the asylum) and places that are hard to establish with certainty (the Seaside Home; Mile End Infirmary) and deductive hypthesis is inevitable in trying to explain them, I referred to setting up the red herring of a possible forger as 'muddying the waters': distracting valid research and commentary on the real historical problems posed by the notes into a pointless and unnecessary discussion. My phrase, apparently offended GH, and he further wrongly interpreted as a threat my friendly intentioned warning that British libel laws are a sort of blackmailers' charter (as I know to my cost, having twice had proceeding started or threatened by convicted criminals - respectively an armed robber convicted of manslaughter and a confidence trickster, the former of whom ultimately became a good friend and admitted that his whole effort was to secure money from publlshers who would willingly shell out a reasonable small amount rather than incur the horrific costs of mounting a court defence against someone incapable of meeting their costs). My warning was offered because a statement that a document that had never left the hands of the Swanson family had been tampered with might be interprted as libelling Mr Swanson. This, of course, no longer as applies as Mr Swanson has died.

I feel as firmly as I ever did that all discussion postulating that the Swanson marginalia are not genuine is a waste of time and should be consigned to File 13 with Maybrick. But I hope that this strong disagreement will not be interpreted as virulent attack.
Martin Fido

[Dan Norder]

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

Thanks, Norma. Those words of support are encouraging.

Unfortunately all too many people don't really want to try to support their claims, they just want to be able to make them and expect everyone else just to agree with them. Some people are worse offenders than others.

I had to put Jeff on my ignore list to block everything he says based upon his rather outrageous accusations and his history of outright lying to try to save face. I don't have anyone else in my ignore list because there's always the chance one of them might have something useful to say. But Jeff has never, in the years I've known him, ever contributed anything of value to this case. He's just a particularly aggressive fanboy of a certain couple of authors whose books he apparently didn't even read.

[Dan Norder]

Dan pounced on me like a rabid hyena with a rather mean-spirited attack on what I'd said. And I dont take that kind of crap.

You must have been wearing "Rob-can-do-no-wrong" colored glasses again.

The post of yours that I felt compelled to respond to (despite trying to stay out of this thread) was a rather mean spirited attack on 99% of the people in Ripperology, including all but maybe three of the authors of the major books on the topic, who you had unfairly dismissed as simply not even considering something as possibly being true.

I actually was trying to be polite as possible considering the inaccuracies in what you said and the misplaced arrogance of your claims. Even if I had not tried to be polite I still wouldn't have jumped to calling you an idiot or a rabid hyena, but you seem to have no problem with that kind of nonsense... while at the same time asking why people fail to give your posts as much attention as you think they deserve. Go figure.

[Dan Norder]

We do have some sort of corroboration of Swanson and Anderson from Sims.

1907

"The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder."

Hi Jason,

That's more of a (partial) corroboration of what Managhten said instead of Swanson and Anderson. Sims and Macnaghten were friends and discussed Macnaghten's theories, though Sims seems to have misinterpreted some of what he was told.

[Jeff Leahy]

Unfortunately all too many people don't really want to try to support their claims, they just want to be able to make them and expect everyone else just to agree with them. Some people are worse offenders than others.

Oh this is fantastic stuff..absolutely priceless Norder. The biggest offender and hypocrit of all talking about unsubstanciated claims (watermarks?).

I had to put Jeff on my ignore list

Then why don't you do it Norder, instead of turning up where ever I'm posting and trying to pick an arguement..you simply cant have it both ways..you are ignoring me...(if only) or you are turning up in my face making wild unsubstanciate claims. That is what this post is doing isn't it?

You are hardly ignoring me are you? your telling porkies again..

to block everything he says based upon his rather outrageous accusations and his history of outright lying to try to save face.

I challenge you to prove this and supply the evidence but you wont because you cant..your all hot air like the tedious off thread posts you continually splatter around the place...I have never lied..period..I say prove it

I don't have anyone else in my ignore list because there's always the chance one of them might have something useful to say.

So everyone else can benefit from your wisdom...lucky them I say

But Jeff has never, in the years I've known him, ever contributed anything of value to this case. He's just a particularly aggressive fanboy of a certain couple of authors whose books he apparently didn't even read.

oh, yer boo sucks, Norder, are you going to cry..or run off and tell mummy that the big boys are being mean and nasty to you...Grow up Norder..

If you cant take the heat dont go in the kitchen

byee

Pirate

PS To everyone else I do appologuise but if you continually have an idiot turn up and accuse you of something you havnt done, there is a piont when you have to respond...hopefully he will now push off and we can continue on thread with 'Did Anderson Know' A crucial question in modern Ripperology

[Jeff Leahy]

Martin,
Thanks for the reply.

Now, I have little doubt that an identification of a suspect by a Jewish witness in connection with the Ripper case actually DID occur. I also have no doubt at all that Anderson really believed in his own claims. He seems clear enough on the matter, and his statement appaears to be made in true conviction.
However, what needs to be looked upon critically is his tendency to transform his personal opinions into 'ascertained facts'. If what he says was an 'ascertained fact' then we wouldn't have the problem of several officials delivering different theories and promoting different suspects.

And here is where I feel the matter of 'boasting' comes in.
Although Anderson's theories are clearly laid out in his memoirs as FACTS, they appear to be made for the purpose of displaying himself as the one who got all the answers and who sat with the key to the Ripper mystery.
This is also supported by the fact that the statement appeared in a commercial source, intended to sell copies.

And here is the rub: although major Smith (whom I generally see as a comic busybody, who shamelessly had no problem with boasting or showing off) was guilty of a number of exemples of artistic freedom as a writer and truth-bending, it is astonishing that he in spite of that was honest enough to admit that he had no clue of who the Ripper was and didn't promote a suspect of his own.

In contrast we have Swanson who penned down his margin annotations - if we just for the sake of simplicity take them as genuine - under more private circumstances where they were not intended for public viewing (which also supports the view upon Swanson as someone who himself objected to officials and policemen writing memoirs).

However, the question remains: what is Swanson actually saying?
Is he in fact saying that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper? No.
What he appears to be doing is 'correcting' or elaborating on Anderson's information about the suspect subjected to identification. There is no real confirmation of that he actually thought this suspect 'Kosminski' to be the Ripper - it's all just been assumed.
So Swanson's alleged 'support' for Anderson's very self-righteous and 'absolute' statements about the Polish Jew as the Ripper has to be viewed critically in this context.

And as far as Macnaghten is concerned, we all know that although his information to some degree confirms yet again that such an identification of a Jewish Ripper suspect took place, we also know that he rather preferred Druitt as a likely suspect for the Ripper. Thus Macnaghten can not be used as support for Anderson's very strong opinions.

All the best

I'd like to return to Glenns earlier post because I beleive it raises a number of interesting questions.

In particular, even if you reach the conclusion that Aron Kosminski was the identified suspect..can we also make the assumption that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper?

Personaly as I've said before I believe that Anderson based his claims on information provided by Swanson in the first place which a number of posters also seem to concur with..

And just a side note, no one has ever raised the question of Class, and Anderson..and wondered if anyone had any thoughts about the Victorian class system and whether that effected Andersons perspective and writing?

Yours Jeff

[Chris]

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.

Rob and I have very different ideas about the likelihood of Aaron Kozminski's involvement in the Whitechapel Murders, but I can assure you that what both of us have been doing is looking for any evidence we can find that may shed light on the problem - regardless of whether it tends to strengthen or diminish the case. Not looking for evidence that will reinforce our preconceptions, or ignoring evidence that doesn't.

[Stewart P Evans]

Turgid

I have noticed a tendency for some of the posts on this thread to be turgid and confusing. In addressing multiple points and meandering from this aspect to that I fear the general reader may well get lost or lose interest. I shall therefore endeavour to keep to the point and address the minimum of points in one posting.

This thread is, basically, concerned with the vexed question, "Did Anderson know?" And, of course, germane to answering such a question is the character of the man himself and the reliability of his word. Even the newest tyro in Ripper research is aware of Anderson's importance and relevance to any attempt to identify the Ripper. The basic research tool The Jack the Ripper A-Z devotes no less than five and a half pages to Anderson's biography alone, and informs us in the second sentence that Anderson "Stated several times that the identity of the Ripper was known." This is unequivocal and, given Anderson's status, could lead any reader to immediately believe that the case was, in fact, solved by the police.

To bolster Anderson's claims the A-Z tells us "It is therefore important to weigh carefully Anderson's reliability as a witness." It notes that Anderson was opinionated and self-satisfied, also that he had some eccentric theological and penological ideas. That said the authors note that "At the same time he had a peculiarly scrupulous regard for the truth and would never have lied directly."

There is a caveat that when Anderson "thought anti-social criminals were involved he was prepared to mislead with half-truths or mental reservation (as he did before the Parnell Commission). His statements about the Ripper's identity are far too direct to fall under this heading." The final paragraph sums up by stating "Anderson may have been quite wrong. But persistent attempts to disprove his statements by denigrating his character are almost on a par with the outdated game of abusing and dismissing the police as a whole (and Warren in particular) in order to allow irresponsible theorising from some other source."

This, then, is the generally accepted view of Anderson portrayed in this reference work. It paints a favourable overall picture of Anderson with regard to acceptance of his word on points relating to the Ripper case. It also seeks to deter others from making critical comments about Anderson and his character and, in overall effect, suggests to the reader that what Anderson had to say about the identification of 'Jack the Ripper' should be accepted as the truth, or at least the truth as Anderson saw and believed it to be. It does not allow for any confusion caused by advanced years nor for any dishonesty on Anderson's part. However, I suggest that a deeper study of Anderson and his works indicates that all possibilities should be considered when assessing the claims of this eccentric individual.

[The Good Michael]

Stewart,

Your summation creates more questions, which is a good thing. Perhaps the real question is: What do we do with Anderson?

If, as the A-Z says, he was scrupulously truthful, but as you and others have pointed out, he was something of a name-dropping blowhard, what value is there in anything we get from him? How do we separate the chaff from the wheat, if indeed there is any wheat?

My next question is directed at you, and it is done so for the sake of understanding where you are coming from. Why do you dismiss Anderson readily? What have you gathered over the years that would make his "truth" improbable?

I have read much about the low class Jew theory, and though there are some possible misremembrances on Anderson's part, the details don't appear irreconcilable to the overall theory. There seems to be a desire by some to paint a picture of Anderson as a forgetful, boastful, doddering old fool. Perhaps this is an accurate picture, but how do we know except through conjecture. I suspect some would say that because Kosminski (or Cohen, or Kaminsky) couldn't have done it, Anderson was an old man of puerile brain.
I prefer Rob House's approach of digging up everything he can find about Kosminski to see what holes are left in Anderson's story, and the theory as a whole. His research could possibly spell the end of Kosminski as a candidate. The candidacy wouldn't disappear because one doesn't like the theory. It would disappear through dogged and determined research with respect to the theory.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Certainly Anderson is a complex character. It is easy to meander. So I will try and address a specific point / question.

Surely Anderson was not old or feeble of mind when writing his book. He retired early..1901 aged 61. His book was published in 1910. He was aged 69.

So he was in his 60's when he made his claim was he not?

He eventually died 1918. Aged 77.

Pirate