Seaside Home?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Paul,

More appropriately would be the word ‘deceptive’. I’m saying he was being deceptive about not knowing of Richard Pigott’s forgeries, was being deceptive about his authorship of the ‘Parnellism and Crime’ articles, was being deceptive when MacDonald, the manager of The Times, told Parnell’s counsel point-blank that the articles were written by several persons (two from Flannagan) and he was silent, and was purposely and deceptively being silent when the Conservative Party took the forgeries as genuine.

I do believe it was in him to be ‘deceptive’ if he believed it was called for (even when the Conservative Party in 1910 was in uproar).

Mike

As the only Parnell on these boards I can assure you this has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and your on a losing wicket..

But hey ho..J

Leahy / Parnell

[mklhawley]

As the only Parnell on these boards I can assure you this has been gone over with a fine tooth comb and your on a losing wicket..

But hey ho..J

Leahy / Parnell

Jeff, I am far from being an expert on this subject, so I'm ok with the losing wicket. The only Parnell. Now, that's cool!

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Mike

A sad claim to fame but one I'm proud of. My Nans uncle was Charles Stewart and she was the youngest of thirteen. She remembered Queen Victorias funeral, which she attended that, and my childhood had fond memories of a tea drinking Victorian world (she did fortunes). Not that my childhood perspective gives us any greater perseption..

However it always makes me smile to think a grew up thinking I was Irish, only to discover later in life the Parnell's were English and American...imagin the shame ..yours Jeff

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike

A sad claim to fame but one I'm proud of. My Nans uncle was Charles Stewart and she was the youngest of thirteen. She remembered Queen Victorias funeral, which she attended that, and my childhood had fond memories of a tea drinking Victorian world (she did fortunes). Not that my childhood perspective gives us any greater perseption..

However it always makes me smile to think a grew up thinking I was Irish, only to discover later in life the Parnell's were English and American...imagin the shame ..yours Jeff

How interesting Jeff. Now, here's what you need to do. Go upstairs in your Nans old house and find that back closet that she lost the key to years ago. I bet you'll find Charles Stewart's old memoirs! Hey, I'm just thinking out of the box!

Thanks again Jeff.

Mike

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

More appropriately would be the word ‘deceptive’. I’m saying he was being deceptive about not knowing of Richard Pigott’s forgeries, was being deceptive about his authorship of the ‘Parnellism and Crime’ articles, was being deceptive when MacDonald, the manager of The Times, told Parnell’s counsel point-blank that the articles were written by several persons (two from Flannagan) and he was silent, and was purposely and deceptively being silent when the Conservative Party took the forgeries as genuine.

I do believe it was in him to be ‘deceptive’ if he believed it was called for (even when the Conservative Party in 1910 was in uproar).

Mike

Mike,
I am not sure where the notion has come from that Anderson was a paragon of honesty; the argument has always been that Anderson would do what he had to do in order to achieve a greater good, which, of course, immediately raises the question of what Anderson would see as "the greater good". Martin Fido also argued that Anderson's deep religious convictions would have prevented him from lying to achieve personal or departmental kudos. I don't know whether some of the things you've said above are altogether fair - what makes you think Anderson was aware the letters were forged by Pigott (Anderson in fact stresses in his later writings that they were not forged by Pigott)? Likewise, how was he being deceptive about his authorship of "Behind the Scenes in America"? And given that the Conservative Party had ample warnings about the unreliability of the letters and their sources, Anderson hardly allowed the Conservatives to enter the bear-pit. Arguably the Conservatives orchestrated the whole business to bring down Parnell, and Anderson was but a very lowly cog in a very small wheel with no real voice to raise - but even if they were, it seems to me that they fall within what Anderson would have seen as "a greater good". It's simply not comparable to telling the public that Jack the Ripper was caught and incarcerated when Anderson knew that he wasn't, and knew that his colleagues in the police, politicians, and senior journalists, and the public at large, knew he wasn't.

As said, nobody to my knowledge has suggested that Anderson's Ripper tale is true because Anderson was so whiter than white that he would never have lied, so finding examples of Anderson lying or deceiving or exaggerating or doing any other the things human beings do doesn't really prove much, and I suggest that it simply serves to obscure the real question of why Anderson would have told such a farcical lie. It seems to me that the only realistic answer is that he didn't, that he, like countless policemen before and since, believed he knew who the criminal was, may even have known who the criminal was, but being the dogmatic Anderson, was for him a certain knowledge.

[PaulB]

OK, I understand you what you're saying, Paul

Aaron Kosminski was JTR and all contrary arguments are irrelevent.

Nope. I have never said Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, no do I believe that he was, nor are any reasonable arguments that he wasn't Jack the Ripper irrelevant. Why do you write that they are?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

It's good to know that you haven't lost your touch.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

So we agree PaulB, that Aaron Kosminski is -- on the balance of probabilities and based on the little we have at this precise moment -- not 'Jack'?

I think Anderson always told the truth as he knew and understood it, his self-serving ego always a big, fat factor in asessing his reliability.

I think that in 1895, as the William Grant might-be-the-Ripper case was about to metastasize, after Lawende affirmed to the Druitt lookalike (minus the scars and tatoos), Macnaghten, who secretly believed in Druitt's guilt, told Anderson (and Swanson) a tale which they fell for because it had truthful elements to it.

To get them away from Grant-Grainger, Mac told them he had been in discreet contact with an anguished family who 'suspected the worst' about their dead member -- he was the fiend, now 'safely caged' soonish after Kelly.

Not trusting Anderson to be discreet about Montie, and with the Druitt family's fate hanging in the balance, Mac gave his despised boss a suspect from the abyss.

'Kosminski' was fictitious, a fictional variant of Druitt, eg. family knowledge, inactive after Kelly, safely dead.

But not so fictional that if push-came-to-shove Mac could not produce a real person (Eh ...? Unfortunately one still alive?) but so far removed from the real individual that if Sir Robert began bragging to everybody -- and he did, almost immediately -- then the oblivious Kosminskis would never know.

The evidence against Druitt was used by Macnaghten to create the 'definitely, ascertained fact' against a Polish Jew who was entirely harmless.

All the 'Seaside Home' stuff from 1910 is, I believe, mythical encrustations to the story, but sincere ones, triggered by Sims' 1907 piece.

In his 1914 memoirs, trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, Mac ruthlessly made it very clear that the Ripper had never been sectioned, was a Gentile, had taken his own life twenty-four hours after Kelly -- maybe longer? -- and was never seen by a useful witness.

Mac had played a game with Anderson, and it is under-appreciated in modern sources that if Anderson and/or Swanson are in the dark about 'Kosminski' being alive -- whilst by contrast Mac is in the know -- then they are being manipulated, just as Chief Constable Affable manipulated his cronies.

At the very least Anderson and Swanson are, arguably, not the more reliable sources regarding the truth about this particular 'suspect'.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

It's good to know that you haven't lost your touch.

Regards,

Simon

Too cryptic for me, Simon. What are you on about?

[PaulB]

So we agree PaulB, that Aaron Kosminski is -- on the balance of probabilities and based on the little we have at this precise moment -- not 'Jack'?

I didn't say that, Jonathan. I said I didn't think he was, meaning that I don't advocate him (or anyone else) as Jack. I'm not very interested in who Jack was, but I am very interested in the history of the case. Kosminski appears in three sources by senior policeman and he was clearly a suspect to whom importance was attached and who Anderson evidently thought was the Ripper. In my view the responsible historian should undertake the necessary research to establish as much information as he can about this and other suspects. That Anderson clearly thought Kosminski was the Ripper and Swanson possibly supported him elevates him to a slightly higher level on the suspect totem pole for research purposes. That does not constitute belief or disbelief. But you already know this.

I think Anderson always told the truth as he knew and understood it, his self-serving ego always a big, fat factor in asessing his reliability.

I think that in 1895, as the William Grant might-be-the-Ripper case was about to metastasize, after Lawende affirmed to the Druitt lookalike (minus the scars and tatoos), Macnaghten, who secretly believed in Druitt's guilt, told Anderson (and Swanson) a tale which they fell for because it had truthful elements to it.

To get them away from Grant-Grainger, Mac told them he had been in discreet contact with an anguished family who 'suspected the worst' about their dead member -- he was the fiend, now 'safely caged' soonish after Kelly.

Not trusting Anderson to be discreet about Montie, and with the Druitt family's fate hanging in the balance, Mac gave his despised boss a suspect from the abyss.

'Kosminski' was fictitious, a fictional variant of Druitt, eg. family knowledge, inactive after Kelly, safely dead.

But not so fictional that if push-came-to-shove Mac could not produce a real person (Eh ...? Unfortunately one still alive?) but so far removed from the real individual that if Sir Robert began bragging to everybody -- and he did, almost immediately -- then the oblivious Kosminskis would never know.

The evidence against Druitt was used by Macnaghten to create the 'definitely, ascertained fact' against a Polish Jew who was entirely harmless.

All the 'Seaside Home' stuff from 1910 is, I believe, mythical encrustations to the story, but sincere ones, triggered by Sims' 1907 piece.

In his 1914 memoirs, trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, Mac ruthlessly made it very clear that the Ripper had never been sectioned, was a Gentile, had taken his own life twenty-four hours after Kelly -- maybe longer? -- and was never seen by a useful witness.

Mac had played a game with Anderson, and it is under-appreciated in modern sources that if Anderson and/or Swanson are in the dark about 'Kosminski' being alive -- whilst by contrast Mac is in the know -- then they are being manipulated, just as Chief Constable Affable manipulated his cronies.

At the very least Anderson and Swanson are, arguably, not the more reliable sources regarding the truth about this particular 'suspect'.

To which, all I can say is that you are advancing interesting speculation, but that it is flat on supportive facts. You will no doubt undertake such research as you can to test your hypothesis and I await that with interest. It still seems to me, however, that whilst people take different interpretive stances and argue their corners with vigour, there are still a lot of misconceptions clouding the waters (such as the notion that Anderson never lied, which has assumed such huge importance but seems largely irrelevant when people discuss other police officials).

[Jeff Leahy]

So we agree PaulB, that Aaron Kosminski is -- on the balance of probabilities and based on the little we have at this precise moment -- not 'Jack'?

.

Unless you can place Druit living in the Eastend then he remains the best 'suspect' we have.

Jeff

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul, and jason,

"It still seems to me, however, that whilst people take different interpretive stances and argue their corners with vigour, there are still a lot of misconceptions clouding the waters (such as the notion that Anderson never lied, which has assumed such huge importance but seems largely irrelevant when people discuss other police officials)"

It will be noted that I was (possibly poorly) trying to do exactly this, by bringing the question of individual policemen ( for whatever reason) either embellishing, varying their views, telling stories or even posribly lying- with no pre-emptive view on any single one of them. I first compared Abberline's and Reid's comments with the words in the marginalia of Swanson. Then the three connected with Kosminski ( Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson) and asked who is telling little stories (note: if any).

What I am trying to get to is indeed an historical overview of motive (if any) for any of these men to have such differing opinions that are in part clouding the waters we are presented with.

The implications, due to such varied views, are important imho.
One can put forward a point that Jonathan touched upon.
IF Swanson was merely explaining in greater detail Anderson's own written views in TLSOMOL, and the marginalia were NOT Swanson's personal views, would this then indicate that Swanson's previous comments ca.1891 etc then be taken as his true views-historically speaking?

Kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil

Yeah, you could, wasn't it something to do with lady's hats?I'm still at work and can't really look it up.

To PaulB

Actually I found that quite difficult to follow?

Nevertheless, you are adhering to a long-standing argument that Anderson was a responsible officer, not perfect obviously but good at his job and highly regarded, and that his opinion -- the only police officer to claim to have nabbed 'Jack' as part of the investigation -- should be taken seriously, and that the alternative, that he was lying, is not very credible.

But that does not mean you think Aaron Kosminski was 'Jack' because we do not have access to what Anderson did, as much has been lost and these people were naturally reticent about making definitive accusations -- naming names and outlining the evidence -- against a person who was beyond receiving due process.

I would just add that I do not think that my previous post is speculation.

It's a theory backed by the surviving sources.

For example, Macnaghten sources show that he knew 'Kosminski' was alive (eg. 'Aberconway') and out and about for years after the Kelly murder (eg. Sims 1907). He regarded this suspect as not just unlikely but worthless (eg. 'Days of My Years')

Arguably, since these basic bits broadly match Aaron Kosminski, then Macnaghten is a more reliable source on this 'suspect' than the other two policemen.

Then why did they believe, or at least Anderson?

Well ... since Macnaghten duped his chums imagine what he was capable of getting up to with a boss whom he despised -- and whom by class and connections he effortlessly outranked?


Taking the broader view, I have discovered that there are several Ripper myths perpetuated in a number of secondary sources, and they are almost impossible to dislodge despite the greater reliability of primary sources. Of course, not all secondary sources perpetuate all of the following, nothing like it. But many do, or are hostage to some, or a few of them.


Myth #1 The timing of 'Dr.' Druitt's demise was convenient, as Macnaghten mistakenly thought it was within hours of the Kelly murder.

The timing of Druitt's death was inconvenient not convenient as Kelly was not the final victim, it was Coles in 1891. Macnaghten had to pretend to the public, via cronies, that CID knew at the time that Kelly was the final victim, hence bumping all other potential Jack victims including Coles. This made Druitt's sucide look allegedly very suspicious at the time. It's rubbish, as primary sources and Mac's own memoirs concede. The whole Druitt tale was handed to him 'some years after' and, remarkably, he became a believer.

Myth #2 Anderson was the only major police figure to claim that the Ripper was definitely identified.

Excluding Abberline's 1903 Chapman theorising, this stale yet stubborn chestnut usually has to be achieved by excluding all Mac sources except the filed version of his Report, in which he does seem to dismiss Druitt as a minor suspect. Yet the MP articles, the other version of the same document which he projected to the public, plus what he fed Sims, confirmed by his 1913 comments and his 1914 memoirs which all show that he was obsessed with Druitt.

And why not? The Ripper intersected with no less than three of his life's passions -- horrific crime, boys education and cricket! No wonder Macnaghten called him 'Protean', 'remarkable', and 'fascinating'.

Myth #3. For over 120 years 'Jack the Ripper' has been a mystery which baffled everybody then and -- if we are all honest with ourselves -- baffles all of us now at this great distance.

Historical methodology shows that this is totally off-track. In 1898, Macnaghten anonymously claimed that the police had solved the mystery (based on a tantalizing, but dangerously libellous scoop which had surfaced and disappeared in 1891).

'Jack' was a suicided English gentleman. Case closed.

If anybody missed this the famous and credible George Sims, Mac's leftist mouthpiece, locked in the 'drowned doctor' as the solution, no ifs or buts. From 1898 to about the eve of the Great War 'Jack the Ripper' wasn't a mystery, it was just that the name was unknown. But Mac's 1914 memoirs too obliquely confirmed the suicided gentleman as they also muddied the waters about him being an entirely posthumous chief suspect.

With Mac and Sims deceased by 1923, the best-selling, right-wing fantastist William Le Queux rebooted the entire saga as an utterly unsolved mystery -- naming a Russian, Czarist agent-doctor. In 1929, Leonard Matters took the 'drowned doctor' head-on and argued it was pure myth as there were no records of such a figure's demise -- which there weren't, of course. He proposed yet another mythical doctor figure, who sunnily emigrated.

Myth #4 Dr. Tumblety was a minor Ripper-police suspect, if barely one at all.

Primary sources show that he was the best suspect the police had in 1888, but that subsequent Whitechapel harlot murders appeared to clear him.

The brilliant Inspector Andrews essays of R. J. Palmer, building on Evans and Gainey pioneering work, has recently, and meticulously reconfirmed the bleeding obvious.

Interestingly, the myth of the 'autumn of terror' had contaminated Litttelchild's memory by 1913, so pervasive was Mac's propagandist paradigm.

Tom Divall named Mac as telling him that the murderer had fled to the States and died there in an asylum, as no other murders happened after. Sound familiar? That's data in flux. A fusion of Dr. Tumblety, Montie Druitt and Aaron Kosminski getting an Off-Broadway try-out but later dropped. Instead he split off 'Kosminski' and left Druitt and Tumblety intertwined and thus unrecoverable.

[PaulB]

Jonathan,
You don't know that Macnaghten told Anderson (and Swanson) anything at all.
You don't know that he told them Druitt had been safely caged. You don't know that Macnaghten didn't trust Anderson to be discreet. You don't know that Macnaghten gave Anderson information about Kosminski, You don't know that Macnaghten despised Anderson... This is all speculation.

And whether or not it is factually based is also open to question. For example, the idea of Macnaghten dropping hints to Anderson doesn't seem to quite fit the hierarchical structure of the Metropolitan Police then or now. A failure to pass on relevant information, such as the possible identity of Jack the Ripper, to a superior officer would have got Macnaghten into seriously hot water.

That Anderson would drop hints to a subordinate to whom he was not obliged to pass non-relevant information is possible, but to have a subordinate not passing on information to a superior would have seriously impaired his promotional chances.
Paul

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Paul, and jason,

(possibly poorly)

Ok I'll try again. Phil your use of the words 'Little Stories' is offensive. If I might use a racist metophor here its like avoiding the 'N' word by trying to use another that is equally if not more offensive. 'Little Stories' simply sounds like an adult trying to scold a child for 'lying'.

( Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson) and asked who is telling little stories (note: if any).l

Well Ok you can ask this. But it has been consistently pointed out to you that these were all honerable men doing an important and difficult job. There is no evidence that they would have lied. If you insist on making such unfounded accusations what you require is to 'demonstrate' precisely when and where these men were prown to 'LYING' (Lets just call it straight)

In terms of Sir Robert Anderson Martin Fido observed based on his study and deep understanding of Anderson religious beliefs that 'He would not lie for personal Kudos' So inorder for people to call Anderson a liar it would be nice if they would demonstrate precicely where Martibn Fido failed to do his job properly...Thats fairly simple.

I then get confused, are you saying that if Anderson is telling the truth that other people are necessarily LYING? Because that neednt be the case. I dont think there is any evidence that any of them were liars either. (As far as I know)

The simple conclusion therefore is that they all told the truth from their individual perspectives. Noone needs to have 'LIED' just the simple process of not knowing the whole story or simply making errors after the passage of time which is a common human condition.

Hi Jonathon

I'm now even more confused. You appear to be saying that Coles was teh last Jack the Ripper victim. Therefore Druit wasnt Jack the Ripper?

Does that mean your now entering the we'll never know who it was camp?

Also for all your trust in what the various people commented and various times at some piont a Ripperologist has to step back and look at the individual suspect and ask teh question could they have commited the Ripper murders regardless of what Anderson McNaughten Abberline or Reid stated.

The only thing we really know about Jack the Ripper is his taste in victim and the Geography. Emma Smiths murder actually being at the epicentre even if she wasnt a victim. Then theres that piece of apron thats had Trevor in a tizzle.. After Eddows Jack was heading East..

This discounts all the main suspects except one.. (unless you include MF theory as a part of the same theory which of course it could be)

Of course you can argue that it was an unknown suspect living...(Black lion Yard? or Mongtigue Street) its fair comment but still a we'll never know position

Yours Jeff