Plausibility of Kosminski

[Stewart P Evans]

Trying to say...

[B]...
I have, it is true written to remind that he was a respected and long-serving senior official at the Yard, with great experience. He was involved in many cases over many years. He was THERE and he lived in an era where "gentlemen" lived and were expected to live by a specific if unwritten code.
My last post simply pointed out that your own allegation that "Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness" was in question, was not exactly supported by your examples, as they appeared to be related to Irish political affairs and his sources (not their accuracy).
...
Phil

Phil, I think that what Trevor is trying to say, in his own way, is that in the matter of how trustworthy and reliable Anderson's words are may only be assessed with any accuracy by reference to his peers and his secular literary output.

In this sense one of the most relevant published works of Anderson's is his Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement of 1906, a mere four years before The Lighter Side of My Official Life (1910) in which his bold claims regarding the identity of the Ripper are made. Published the same year as the latter work was a book called Irish Conspiracies Recollections of John Mallon (The Great Irish Detective) and Other Reminiscences, by Frederick Moir Bussy, London, Everett & Co., 1910. Amongst the material used by Bussy in writing this book were annotations made by Mallon in a copy of Anderson's Sidelights (above).

The Bussy book is very critical of Anderson and although published in London the same year as Lighter Side there was, as far as we know (and perhaps significantly) no response from Anderson to this criticism.

Amongst other incidents Bussy quotes the story of Anderson (in his Sidelights book) about Anderson going to see a Fenian prisoner, Godfrey Massey, in his cell at Kilmainham Prison in 1867. Basically, Anderson boasted that he had entered Massey's cell, on his own, at great risk to himself and had 'turned' Massey into an informer, obtaining vital information on the Fenian plotting and uprising of 1867.

Mallon (and Bussy) described Anderson's story as 'a very picturesque account of his participation in the affair', which, as Paul has pointed out, 'is a nice way of accusing Anderson of lying.' Bussy stated that he had 'Mallon's written assurance that that statement is not correct, and that Sir Robert was not the man who did that thing, and as I scent inaccuracy in other statements and claims contained in Side Lights on the Home Rule Movement, and as the book is redolent of prejudice from cover to cover, I elect to believe Mallon.' This is very damaging to Anderson's veracity and reliability as a writer.

Paul Begg has assessed this work in his intriguing article in the latest issue of Ripperologist (issue 121 July 2011), in order to counter the allegation and reinstate Anderson's standing. In the article Paul points out that modern historian Lindsay Clutterbuck uses the Mallon/Bussy material in his An Accident of History? The Evolution of Counter Terrorism Methodology... thesis (2002) where he decides that Anderson's 'most authoritative critic is probably Bussy (1910), who, using his association with Superintendent John Mallon of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, a man with first hand knowledge of many of the events, paints a picture of Anderson as a man who 'talks a good job', irrespective of his personal involvement in it. Consequently, caution must be exercised in using Anderson as a source.'

That, then, is the conclusion of a modern historian, and Paul rightly states that 'Prima facie Bussy/Mallon's claims are damning and Clutterbuck's conclusion is one to be endorsed, and the implications for Anderson's authority on the Ripper are serious, but are Bussy/Mallon's claims correct?' (emphasis mine). Paul examines the material and sources and concludes that they are not correct and ends his essay with 'Is Frederick Moir Bussy, using the authority of John Mallon, really Sir Robert Anderson's "most authoritative critic"? The answer must be no.'

I thoroughly recommend Paul's article to anyone who may be interested.

[PaulB]

In keeping with the tradition of posting quotes from memoirs and other documents. I thought I would contribute. The following is an extract from Lindsey Clutterbucks Thesis page 54.

“Anderson was appointed to The Metropolitan police as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CID in 1888 and hence resumed operation responsibility for their activities in countering Irish National extremism.

However on the publication of his memoirs in 1906 and a further selection in 1910 his political contemporaries publicly called into question Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness. He was denounced by Sir William Harcourt the Home Secretary at the time of the Irish extremist dynamite campaign of the early 1880s, on the grounds that he was using official information in his private memoirs.

Churchill too was not impressed by the memoirs but his most authoritive critic is probably Bussey (1910) who using his association with Superintendent John Mallon of the Dublin Metropolitan police, a man with firsthand knowledge of many of the events of paints a picture of the Anderson as the man who “Talks a good job” irrespective of his personal involvement in it. Consequently, caution must be exercised in using Anderson as a source.”

This is old and much of it has been the subject of endless discussion, long before Clutterbuck wrote of it, Bussy and Mallon need substantiation. As Phil H has said, a lot of it is political. That's not mincing or twisting words, it's the facts.

[PaulB]

And the ongoing contempt and abuse and disparaging comments shown to me by the likes of you and Paul on here is acceptable in your eyes are they ? Have you asked the other posters on here who adopt the same practice to desist if you have they havent taken much notice of you. Perhaps they are treating your request also with contempt. If I had written and said half the things about you or paul which you have said or written against me you would have been running crying to admin to have me removed.

Hold on a minute. First of all you openly insinuate that my friend and colleague Keith Skinner stole the Aberconway version and the Davies report, which was so outrageous that your posts were removed and you were barred. On top of that, you at no time ever asked Keith for a copy of either.
Then you pop up wetting yourself with excitement over a video by another friend and colleague but which shows you attempting to disparage him without having read his book or knowing anything about his thinking or his theory, and when asked directly if you'd read his book you avoid answering and throw all manner of nasty little platitudes at me about ships sinking, clocks ticking, book burnings on the village green, all of which demonstrate that you look upon this as a point scoring exercise, and have invented utter nonsense about a Ripper cartel. And behind all of this you demonstrate a profound ignorance of the subject which has brought you into conflict with a lot of other posters. And you show a similar ignorance of the established and proper methods of source analysis and try to make out that those who do are wrong. So, please don't bleat about "contempt and abuse and disparaging comments" directed at you. You have brought them all on your own head.

It is you and Paul who seem to cant handle evidence you both seem to want to disregard it in its entirety little as it is in any event and keep citing the historical factor. But there has to come a point in time when the historical side has to move over for the investigative side to be given a chance. You and Paul wont allow that to happen because you are frightened that the results will drastically weaken you own personal theories and you egos would be dented.

And this kind of rubbish contributes to the contempt. Apart from everything you say here being out-and-out wrong, how many times does it have to be said to you that I don't have a personal theory, that I don't care who Jack the Ripper was, and that I would happily receive any new information you obtain. It is your assumption that people have beliefs which they don't have that leads you to make so many mistakes, like condemning Martin as a Kosminsi-ite when he isn't. You can't even be bothered to properly acquaint yourself with the facts of what people do believe.

The difference bewteen you Paul and myself is we are from different backgrounds. I do not have university degrees or certificates as a result I dont constanly barrage posters with a string of long hoity toity words which no one can understand the meaning of save for those who wrote them. If the way I write and the way I put things across is not acceptable to some tough, people either take me or leave me I am to old in the tooth to worry either way.

So, one needs a university degree in order to use hoity-toity words! I don't.

As to being torn apart I can accept constructive critisism it seems you and Paul cant

[Phil H]

Yet you and Paul regard him as a shining light.

Gosh, but don't you over-dramatise. (You must need to, I suppose.)

Please indicate a single post where I have described Anderson as in any was as a "shining light" or said or inferred anything similar.

I have, it is true written to remind that he was a respected and long-serving senior official at the Yard, with great experience. He was involved in many cases over many years. He was THERE and he lived in an era where "gentlemen" lived and were expected to live by a specific if unwritten code.

My last post simply pointed out that your own allegation that "Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness" was in question, was not exactly supported by your examples, as they appeared to be related to Irish political affairs and his sources (not their accuracy).

Maybe you don't even bother to read or think through your own posts, Trevor?

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

In keeping with the tradition of posting quotes from memoirs and other documents. I thought I would contribute. The following is an extract from Lindsey Clutterbucks Thesis page 54.

“Anderson was appointed to The Metropolitan police as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CID in 1888 and hence resumed operation responsibility for their activities in countering Irish National extremism.

However on the publication of his memoirs in 1906 and a further selection in 1910 his political contemporaries publicly called into question Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness. He was denounced by Sir William Harcourt the Home Secretary at the time of the Irish extremist dynamite campaign of the early 1880s, on the grounds that he was using official information in his private memoirs.

Churchill too was not impressed by the memoirs but his most authoritive critic is probably Bussey (1910) who using his association with Superintendent John Mallon of the Dublin Metropolitan police, a man with firsthand knowledge of many of the events of paints a picture of the Anderson as the man who “Talks a good job” irrespective of his personal involvement in it. Consequently, caution must be exercised in using Anderson as a source.”

Harcourt's and Churchill's comments are not, of course, on "Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness" and relate to Irish rather than Met activities (though I may be wrong on that).

I suspect a "political" motivation for some of these points - Anderson was deeply and for a long time involved in the murky waters of Irish affairs, when they were even more contentious and sensitive than in recent years (civil war loomed in 1914).

Phil

You see you are doing it again turning it around so as to detract away from the long standing views that Anderson was unrelieble and untrustworthy when it came to his writings. Surely all these pople who say the same about him cant all be wrong. Yet you and Paul regard him as a shining light.

[Phil H]

In keeping with the tradition of posting quotes from memoirs and other documents. I thought I would contribute. The following is an extract from Lindsey Clutterbucks Thesis page 54.

“Anderson was appointed to The Metropolitan police as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CID in 1888 and hence resumed operation responsibility for their activities in countering Irish National extremism.

However on the publication of his memoirs in 1906 and a further selection in 1910 his political contemporaries publicly called into question Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness. He was denounced by Sir William Harcourt the Home Secretary at the time of the Irish extremist dynamite campaign of the early 1880s, on the grounds that he was using official information in his private memoirs.

Churchill too was not impressed by the memoirs but his most authoritive critic is probably Bussey (1910) who using his association with Superintendent John Mallon of the Dublin Metropolitan police, a man with firsthand knowledge of many of the events of paints a picture of the Anderson as the man who “Talks a good job” irrespective of his personal involvement in it. Consequently, caution must be exercised in using Anderson as a source.”

Harcourt's and Churchill's comments are not, of course, on "Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness" and relate to Irish rather than Met activities (though I may be wrong on that).

I suspect a "political" motivation for some of these points - Anderson was deeply and for a long time involved in the murky waters of Irish affairs, when they were even more contentious and sensitive than in recent years (civil war loomed in 1914).

Phil

[harry]

Hunter,
I mistrust the information of anyone,when that information is of such a nature,that it is unable,after serious investigation,to determine the true facts.Now you or anyone like to demonstrate that the facts of an identification,beyond doubt,established the identity of JTR,I would then have nothing to be distrustfull about.

[Phil H]

Phil dont question my ability to handle evidence I have been handling and assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases for 40 years and still am to this very day so I think that gives me an edge over you and Paul in that field.

I'll base my assessment of your "abilities" on what you demonstrate, thank you. Your self-assessment of your talents is of no account - peer acceptance is all. So far, your manners and your appreciation of how to handle evidence appear to me at kindergarten level or below.

Besides the length of time you may have been playing with the subject has no relevance. The newest student or graduate with a grasp of standards, consistency, and professionalism wiould cast you in the shade.

It is you and Paul who seem to cant handle evidence you both seem to want to disregard it in its entirety little as it is in any event and keep citing the historical factor.

What nonsense, it is others who want to set aside/ignore written evidence by key players. Paul B, I and others have argued consistently for evidence to be assessed and evaluated according to the normal and accepted rules of scholarship.

But there has to come a point in time when the historical side has to move over for the investigative side to be given a chance.

Again nonsense. You can play in the mud-pit and construct your theories all you want. The immature and the hasty will always find the protocols and procedures of the professional inhibiting, I guess - but they are there for a purpose. It's similar to the difference between Dickens or Tolstoy and one of those anonymous books you find in a bookshop meant for one-handed reading.

But if you want to gain wider acceptance in the adult world (as Sugden's book has, for instance) then nothing but the generally accepted and conventional historical approach will satisfy.

You and Paul wont allow that to happen because you are frightened that the results will drastically weaken you own personal theories and you egos would be dented.

What!?? I have no "ego" in this field. I have no theory to defend, no statements to support - I am interested in seeking to understand and explore.
Why should I be "frightened? Indeed, I have admitted mistakes freely in posts recently. Don't judge everyone by your approach and concerns, Trevor.

The difference bewteen you Paul and myself is we are from different backgrounds. I do not have university degrees or certificates as a result I dont constanly barrage posters with a string of long hoity toity words which no one can understand the meaning of save for those who wrote them.

Now your own insecurities are showing. Paul and I (if I can link an established and respected authority and my unworthy name) are simply trying to point out that - as in any discipline - accountancy, literature, mathematics, music - there are convventions, processes, approaches and rules that need to be followed if you are to receive peer agreement and acceptance. these are well-established and have evolved over generations BECAUSE the handling of historical evidence is so sensitive and difficult. You CAN, of course, break the rules, but you run the risk - if you are not very brilliant and innovative - of alienating the audience you desire.

Precise words are used because they have meaning, acceptance and for clarity - not because they are LONG words!

If the way I write and the way I put things across is not acceptable to some tough, people either take me or leave me I am to old in the tooth to worry either way.

Fine, but accept that your writings may be perceived as similar to von daniken's or Holy Blood/Holy Grail. Those earned their authors millions, but have garnered scant respect. If you want a fan following of the misguided and easily led, I don't object. But I do think Ripper studies deserves more and better.

As to being torn apart I can accept constructive critisism it seems you and Paul cant

Please cite ONE example of where I have not accepted constructive criticism from you or anyone else. I reserve the right, of course, to argue my point 9and wider conventions). I am not simply going to cave in to an acceptance of amateur approaches and half-baked theories, however well-argued.

To be absolutely clear, trevor, I have no animus against you personally (though your tone and comments sometimes don't do you justice. I enjoyed your book, it was entertainingly written - though it did not convince me. I admire and support your work on the FOI issue (though I can see the case and the principles involved from inside as well as out.

I hope what I have said clearly explains the position.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Reliability of Anderson !

In keeping with the tradition of posting quotes from memoirs and other documents. I thought I would contribute. The following is an extract from Lindsey Clutterbucks Thesis page 54.

“Anderson was appointed to The Metropolitan police as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CID in 1888 and hence resumed operation responsibility for their activities in countering Irish National extremism.

However on the publication of his memoirs in 1906 and a further selection in 1910 his political contemporaries publicly called into question Anderson’s reliability and accuracy as a witness. He was denounced by Sir William Harcourt the Home Secretary at the time of the Irish extremist dynamite campaign of the early 1880s, on the grounds that he was using official information in his private memoirs.

Churchill too was not impressed by the memoirs but his most authoritive critic is probably Bussey (1910) who using his association with Superintendent John Mallon of the Dublin Metropolitan police, a man with firsthand knowledge of many of the events of paints a picture of the Anderson as the man who “Talks a good job” irrespective of his personal involvement in it. Consequently, caution must be exercised in using Anderson as a source.”

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

You have been asked before NOT to respond to posts by bolding your comments within another's original post. It is a reprehensible habit. In effect, it shows your contempt for other posters.

And the ongoing contempt and abuse and disparaging comments shown to me by the likes of you and Paul on here is acceptable in your eyes are they ? Have you asked the other posters on here who adopt the same practice to desist if you have they havent taken much notice of you. Perhaps they are treating your request also with contempt. If I had written and said half the things about you or paul which you have said or written against me you would have been running crying to admin to have me removed.

If you were a schoolboy and I your teacher you'd get a "C minus" for presentation and a worse mark for your wholly inconsistent approach to handling evidence. Your approach is full of holes which will never allow any thesis you promote on those grounds to be sustained. Your critics would tear you to pieces.

Phil

Phil dont question my ability to handle evidence I have been handling and assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases for 40 years and still am to this very day so I think that gives me an edge over you and Paul in that field.

It is you and Paul who seem to cant handle evidence you both seem to want to disregard it in its entirety little as it is in any event and keep citing the historical factor. But there has to come a point in time when the historical side has to move over for the investigative side to be given a chance. You and Paul wont allow that to happen because you are frightened that the results will drastically weaken you own personal theories and you egos would be dented.

The difference bewteen you Paul and myself is we are from different backgrounds. I do not have university degrees or certificates as a result I dont constanly barrage posters with a string of long hoity toity words which no one can understand the meaning of save for those who wrote them. If the way I write and the way I put things across is not acceptable to some tough, people either take me or leave me I am to old in the tooth to worry either way.

As to being torn apart I can accept constructive critisism it seems you and Paul cant

[PaulB]

Or believe !

Not necessarily; perversely, the sheer improbability of the Police Convalescent Seaside Home being used for the identification and consequently not something that can easily be attributed to something Swanson would have said in error, weighs in favour of believability. It is not something that is easily understandable, however.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for that confirmation. And it is all Don said, and I am not aware of anything that has come to light in the last 25-years to contradict him, though goodness knows we've all tried to identify somewhere else as "the Seaside Home", especially as some nearer-London location would make Swanson's account easier to understand.

Or believe !

[Phil H]

Trevor

You have been asked before NOT to respond to posts by bolding your comments within another's original post. It is a reprehensible habit. In effect, it shows your contempt for other posters.

If you were a schoolboy and I your teacher you'd get a "C minus" for presentation and a worse mark for your wholly inconsistent approach to handling evidence. Your approach is full of holes which will never allow any thesis you promote on those grounds to be sustained. Your critics would tear you to pieces.

For Phil C

That is why humans are made differently. You have your choices, I have mine. I can live with yours -without having to use excuse after excuse to cover Swanson's, and Macnaghten's sudden lapses of factual memory for mine, even though I disagree with you, totally and floccinaucinihilipilificate them.

Carry on watching the wheels go round. The carriage is going nowhere. Yawn.

I am not aware of having made ANY excuses for Swanson or MM. MM HIMSELF said thathe relied upon memory.

All I have stated is that, if you use the standard approach adopted by all serious historians, you cannot ignore evidence. As has been stated many times by a number of us, Swanson, Anderson and MM were senior figures involved in the investigation at the time, and they variously expressed opinions which in part align. We do not know how or why, or have all the material they did, but their views exist in writing. However inconvenient for some that might be, it CANNOT BE IGNORED or expunged.

If you want to argue, as would be wholly proper, that we should discount or set aside that written evidence, then solid arguments are required that can be judged by others and accepted or rejected.

In the privacy of ones own home a certain amount of onanism may be allowable because it does not impinge on others. But here on Casebook, as in the academic world, your views are only worth as much as your peers allow. What you believe is frankly irrelevant. It is whether your opinions and judgements stand up to scrutiny. That is why I referred to my respect for you diminishing (it was not a personal comment) - standing in the academic field is is based on respect and acceptance.

To use an anaology that might reach you - you are welcome personally, to believe that 2+2 = 51. That is up toyou. But if you try to apply that to practical problams you will not get an answer that agrees with others, that passes muster or is acceptable to your bank manager or the taxman. Your personal views are irrelevant once you start to be active in the real, adult world.

Mathematics has rules and conventions, just so the academic world, the world of scholarship and intellect, the exchange of ideas has rules and conventions. Languages too, in grammar and syntax. Breaking the rules may allow you to "fizz and pop" and appear exciting for a while, but it will not convince in the long term and lacks foundations (like the biblical house built on sand, and will be swept away by the first storm.

Phil

Phil

[PaulB]

Like Don, I joined the police service in the 1960s and my contributions for the Convalescent Police Seaside Home at Hove came directly out of my wages. We all referred to it as 'The Seaside Home' at that time. However, I cannot speak for Swanson's day but can only assume that this colloquial police reference started then.

Thanks for that confirmation. And it is all Don said, and I am not aware of anything that has come to light in the last 25-years to contradict him, though goodness knows we've all tried to identify somewhere else as "the Seaside Home", especially as some nearer-London location would make Swanson's account easier to understand.

[PaulB]

You must be pretty proud of this contribution. Because I say that a persons opinion isn't fact.. masses of barbed attack.

And you call yourself a historian wanting facts?.

Shame on you Paul.

You seem to just want to believe because it keeps the wheels going.


I will not respond further. I have no reputation to be kept. But you have.

This last pack of personalised diatribe is beneath you Paul. You really should know better.

Guess what?. Your opinion of me isn't worth anything in the genre, and contributes nothing.

And it doesn't worry me in the slightest..sticks and stones Paul. Sticks and stones.


kindly


Phil

Of come off it, this isn't about attacking you personally, it's about the impossibility of having any sort of meaningful discourse with you because you don't accept the same reasoning processes. Phil H and I, and probably Jonathan H too, do, and we profoundly disagree with what you are saying because for the most part it does not conform to the accepted techniques of source analysis. You are told this, but you reject the accepted techniques, arguing that they don't have to be followed, citing fuddy-duddy teachers you had 40-years ago. So you argued that Macnaghten et al can be thrown away because they are uncorroborted, we say that they can be used and we say why, you reject those reasons why. You therefore undercut the very foundation on which our arguments are based, just in the same way as anyone working on information gained from the moon landings has no real argument to someone who says the moon landings never happened. Meaningful dialogue is therefore impossible. It [I]is a waste of time, and you are ploughing your own furrow, and you may be vindicated. It's not insulting to you to say so. But what it means is that there is no point in debating with you because you don't even accept that the historical tools we use are the right tools.