There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia

[Jonathan H]

Norma

No, I didn't think you would have any comeback.

Plus that's the fourth time I have asked if it is possible that Anderson was sincere but mistaken?

No response ...

There will not be fifth.

[Natalie Severn]

Norma

No, I didn't think you would have any comeback.

Plus that's the fourth time I have asked if it is possible that Anderson was sincere but mistaken?

No response ...

There will not be fifth.

Jonathan,
On the previous page I posted my view on Macnaghten's 1894 report.That remains my view and I have nothing further to add at this juncture.
Anderson has nothing to say that interests me any longer or takes me any further into understanding this case.
Edward Jenkinson interests me, even Warren - but not Anderson.
I don"t know whether Anderson was sincere.I disliked several things he said about the victims of JtR and thought his remarks callous in the extreme and contrasting markedly with those of Abberline, who I believe was also a very good detective who took the hunt for the ripper seriously.
Best wishes,
Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

May I answer your question?

Anderson mistaken? Certainly, though I use the word 'mistaken' euphemistically.

Sincere? From my reading of his various evasions, hair-splitting, invention and self-aggrandizement I would give him a big thumbs down.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Simon.

We disagree, though not fundamentally.

I see him as always thinking of himself as a straight-shooter, but ego gets in the way of the facts.

That is still sincere.

But unlike the person I addressed, you have given me a straight answer to a straight question, and I appreicate that.

By the way, I think that Macnaghten 'gave' Anderson the Kosminski suspect to keep him away from the Druitt story. That he did not trust him to keep his mouth shut and not brag about bagging the fiend.

Sure enough, Anderson began doing exactly that, causing Macnaghten to moire subtly counter with a version of the Druitt story supplied by a Tory and a Liberal which would quash this -- potentially -- anti-Semitic mythos.

Sims talks about his suspect being the subject of a definitive Home Office Report.

Whereas, Anderson never refers to any kind of document, not does he ever refer to Druitt, or the 'Drowned Doctor', in any form whatsosver?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

A question we should address is upon what authority did Macnaghten write his memorandum? Did he take it upon himself, or did, perhaps, a request come down through the chain of command [Home Secretary > Commissioner > Assistant Commissioner > Chief Constable] and land on his desk? He was, after all, four places down on the totem pole.

Regards,

Simon

[Tecs]

Maria,

No, I don't mind answering and I'll be honest with you. I began writing in 2000 when I noticed a clear gap in the Ripper canon. I realised that the truth was that the best thing to do is read all of the ripper books putting forward a different suspect and then decide on your own favourite. But there was one suspect who hadn't had a serious book written about him. Don't groan everyone but our old friend George Chapman always struck me as a much better suspect than most. Every book I read had a section dealing with other theories and Chapman was usually dismissed very quickly and in my opinion, for the flimsiest of reasons. A surgically trained Polish "Jew" (sic), who matched every serious description of the killer, who lived in the heart of the district for the whole period. Who said that he would cut his wife's head off, threatened her with a knife, a man who moved around all over the place as if he was always on the run from someone and who used several aliases and most importantly a man who proved beyond any doubt that he was capable of murder, which is actually a massive fact when you consider it seriously, seemed a much better suspect than a drowned barrister, misogynist poet, masturbating madman etc. The two points I mentioned there are huge if you really consider them. It takes an amazing amount of....something! to take a knife and cut into a human body especially when you graduate to removing organs in the dark. I know there is debate about the medical issue, but I will never be convinced that a person who has never cut up a body in some way, can just suddenly start doing it one day. That is only a personal opinion. The other point I think shows a lot more than we perhaps realise as well. To just accuse someone who as far as we know never showed any violent tendencies at all, is a bit misguided I think. Thankfully, very, very few people are capable of serial murder. Chapman was one, Jack the Ripper was another and if they were not one and the same, then there were two of these very rare individuals who just happened to live within streets of each other at the same time. Oh and didn't a certain Inspector Abberline believe that he was the killer? Plus several other officers.

Here is not the place to go into Chapman in too much detail (I just wanted to outline a bit in order to show that there is enough of a case to get him to the starting gate and also to hopefully placate the hordes who will say "Oh Christ, not somebody who takes Chapman seriously!")

I couldn't believe that nobody had ever written a book naming Chapman, so when I read Philip Sugden's book which of course did get Chapman to the starting blocks, I was relieved that somebody else appeared to think the same. So I got started and got approx 130 pages down, all the time keeping an eye on the UK book shelves in case somebody else brought a book out first. I didn't have the internet in those days and when I did eventually get it I did a worldwide search and to my horror, found Michael Gordon's books! When I got them (through Amazon) and read them, they were pretty much what I was doing and so I stopped.

I may resurrect it one day though as there are some differences, I'm not too interested in the American murders for example, or the torso murders and there are still 3 or 4 original points that I could bring to it. Also, there's nothing stopping you bringing out a book naming the same suspect as somebody else such as Cullen and Farson both naming Druitt so one day maybe.

For now, I'm happy to play on the casebook!

PS, I never thought that the idea that Chapman was a poisoner in any way stopped him being the Ripper. Why couldn't he do both? Other killers have changed their M.O. Also, for me the fact that he went out and proved he was capable of killing adds to his ripper credibilty not takes away from it.

And the fact that he was alive for years after didn't bother me either as other killers have just stopped for some reason. This was subsequently proved by David Mulcahy and especially B.T.K.

PPS I'm not saying that Chapman was the Ripper by the way, but if a list of possibles is being put forward to be considered, then surely Chapman should be in there?

Sorry for the length of reply!

Regards,

[Tecs]

I have always suspected that the sink story was apocryphal but perhaps I've been influenced by the negative way it was reported the first time I heard about it.

Surely the main problem with the sink story is the lack of any reference to it in any other source?

Dear both.

Exactly the point I was making. It may be untrue or apocryphal, but we don't know for certain that it is.

Smith is viewed nowadays as a liar but in order to say so, surely we should prove him to be so. Far fetched the sink story may be but until somebody proves it is definitely untrue, nobody has any right to call him a liar.

Regards,

[Tecs]

This is true.Henry Smith , parallel in rank and a lot more urbane than the Ulster firebrand Robert Anderson, had no truck with Anderson"s theory about Kosminski and viewed his comments about the Immigrant Polish Jewish community "shielding the murderer " because "they wouldnt cooperate with Gentile justice",as deeply offensive and ridiculous and he said so.That he took such a position against Anderson is what has rankled.



Yes, isn't that why Anderson changed some of his memoirs when it went into book form?

Regards,

[Tecs]

as Chris says above,no other source refers to this so he quite likely made that bit up.

Norma,

Many thanks for your reply,

Playing devil's advocate, isn't that the whole point? ie "Nobody else mentions it so Smith is probably lying." seems to be the postion taken on him nowadays, when a perfectly acceptable alternative is that it just happened to be a story that nobody else mentioned! Why say he is lying? (not you directly, I mean everybody who says so.)

One thing's for sure, I'd rather sit next to Henry at a dinner party than Rob!

Regards,

[Natalie Severn]

This is true.Henry Smith , parallel in rank and a lot more urbane than the Ulster firebrand Robert Anderson, had no truck with Anderson"s theory about Kosminski and viewed his comments about the Immigrant Polish Jewish community "shielding the murderer " because "they wouldnt cooperate with Gentile justice",as deeply offensive and ridiculous and he said so.That he took such a position against Anderson is what has rankled.



Yes, isn't that why Anderson changed some of his memoirs when it went into book form?

Regards,

It certainly seems so.....Blackwells Magazine carried the first version which was "modified" in TLSOMOL.

[Natalie Severn]

as Chris says above,no other source refers to this so he quite likely made that bit up.

Norma,




One thing's for sure, I'd rather sit next to Henry at a dinner party than Rob!

Regards,

You"re not kidding! Especially as Sir Robert might be on his mobile to the Almighty!

[mariab]

Tecs,
I didn't groan about your considering Chapman a possible suspect, as there has been a time (not too long ago) where I was considering him too. But since the word is out that the murders on American soil attributed to him do not add up, I have serious doubts. (Albeit without abandonning the thought altogether, just keeping him at the very end of the list. And by the way, a change of the M.O. has occurred in other cases, like in the Zodiac case and in others, although there is a certain amount of controversy even for these cases.) No clue who B.T.K. was.
And I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with Michael Gordon's books and with the sink theory.
Tecs wrote:
One things for sure, I'd rather sit next to Henry at a dinner party than Rob.
I hope you don't mean Rob House! I don't believe in the least in Kozminski as a suspect, but Rob House's qualities and seriousness as a researcher have brought my attention to this part of the investigation, and I'll most definitely buy his upcoming book.

[jason_c]

Anderson is now an Ulster firebrand?

Nice colourful language but completely wrong.

[mariab]

To Tecs:
OK, by Rob you clearly mean Anderson, so I'll fully agree with you. NO way I'd be interested in sitting next to him at a social function. (Even with the possibility of grilling him, as it would most certainly turn out to be fruitless. Not to mention the ridiculous poise in his famous photograph. Almost like a statesman!)

[Natalie Severn]

Anderson is now an Ulster firebrand?

Nice colourful language but completely wrong.

Lets say a "secret" Ulster firebrand ! His wife was from one of the original Derry Boy families and he was fervent about the Orange cause.