Plausibility of Kosminski

[Tom_Wescott]

If you translate that into what you say above and call it 'a great look' then I can only wonder at your powers of interpretation.

You already wondered at my powers of interpretation and called me a 'lost cause' and 'unbiased'. Actually, I think you said all authors tackling a suspect book are lost causes. Apparently, this is now a trend with you. Ripperology is, was, and always will be the search for the identity of the man called Jack the Ripper. The irony of Ripperology is that the majority of insults, barbs, and judgements passed seemed to be reserved only for the minority of us who dare to attempt to answer the biggest question of all...Who was he?

While I can understand Menges confusion at your seemingly contradictory statements, I do not understand his attacks upon your book. Is it outdated in the face of the mountains of information that have come forth in the last 16 years? Of course it is, but it's also the sole reason why people went looking and FOUND this mountain of information. I have always said The Lodger is a template for what a suspect book SHOULD be, and naturally that includes speculating and theorising. Without those two things, you merely have a boring collection of facts and newspaper clippings. It's one of only two suspect books of at least the last 20 years that I would call necessary, the other being Rob House's book, because a thorough, thoughtful, and detailed book on Kosminski was LONG overdue, and I can't imagine anyone having done a better job with it than Rob did, even if some feel his enthusiasm went overboard at times. It certainly did in The Lodger as well, but an author's enthusiasm is a big chunk of what makes a book readable. Contrary to the bias and poor powers of observation that have recently become my trademark on message boards, I think people will be very pleasantly surprised by the tone of my book and the new information contained when it is finally published (and it will be). It will be the third 'necesarry' suspect book, unless Hainsworth beats me to print with the new authoritative book on Druitt!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Quick answer

Here's a newbie question, as I was unable to find the answer on a very quick search (and I'd rather should be working on a paper on severe deadline right now):
Did Lawende manage to identify Eddowes at the morgue?
We know that Schwartz did identify Stride. (As well as Packer did, he he.)

A quick answer, no, he identified her clothing only.

[mariab]

Quote mariab:
Did Lawende manage to identify Eddowes at the morgue?

A quick answer, no, he identified her clothing only.

Yep, that's what I was thinking, and I'm under the impression that Eddowes' skirt was distinctive.
Ergo, Schwartz did indeed have a better look than Lawende.
Unless Schwartz's story was partly fabricated (as I'm trying to investigate) and he saw Stride first as a dead body in Dutfield's Yard – to put it very bluntly. :-)

Pertaining to suspect books, my personal stance is that they are absolutely necessary in the field in order to introduce new suspects or to discuss historical suspects long neglected (like Kozminsky). I appreciate authors who approach suspects quite differently in different books, without “regurgitating“ (to quote Jonathan Hainsworth) old stuff from their other books, such as SPE in The Lodger/JTR: The first American seral killer? vs. Scotland Yard investigates AND such as Tom Wescott in his different Examiner articles, as he recently published/is about to publish articles considering different suspects on Berner Street. A suspect book should not be “biased“ (whatever that exactly means and as much as it is possible at 100%), but understandably it has to be selective. Which obviously isn't meant to be the same thing as knowledgeably suppressing evidence.

[Stewart P Evans]

Tom...

You already wondered at my powers of interpretation and called me a 'lost cause' and 'unbiased'. Actually, I think you said all authors tackling a suspect book are lost causes. Apparently, this is now a trend with you. Ripperology is, was, and always will be the search for the identity of the man called Jack the Ripper. The irony of Ripperology is that the majority of insults, barbs, and judgements passed seemed to be reserved only for the minority of us who dare to attempt to answer the biggest question of all...Who was he?
While I can understand Menges confusion at your seemingly contradictory statements, I do not understand his attacks upon your book. Is it outdated in the face of the mountains of information that have come forth in the last 16 years? Of course it is, but it's also the sole reason why people went looking and FOUND this mountain of information. I have always said The Lodger is a template for what a suspect book SHOULD be, and naturally that includes speculating and theorising. Without those two things, you merely have a boring collection of facts and newspaper clippings. It's one of only two suspect books of at least the last 20 years that I would call necessary, the other being Rob House's book, because a thorough, thoughtful, and detailed book on Kosminski was LONG overdue, and I can't imagine anyone having done a better job with it than Rob did, even if some feel his enthusiasm went overboard at times. It certainly did in The Lodger as well, but an author's enthusiasm is a big chunk of what makes a book readable. Contrary to the bias and poor powers of observation that have recently become my trademark on message boards, I think people will be very pleasantly surprised by the tone of my book and the new information contained when it is finally published (and it will be). It will be the third 'necesarry' suspect book, unless Hainsworth beats me to print with the new authoritative book on Druitt!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Tom, we have been in touch with each other for many years and, I hope, you must agree that I have helped and encouraged you. I recognised your enthusiasm and eye for research at an early stage. And you have stayed the course.

Similarly with Rob, the nicest of guys, I have helped and encouraged him over the years. He even came and stayed with us when over here. I was impressed by his pursuit of Kozminski and amazed that he visited Klodawa. I encouraged him to write his Kozminski book and was pleased to see it published. I am sure that it would be very difficult for anyone to do a better job. I know that he is disappointed if I ever say anything of a critical nature, but I'm sorry, I speak mind, as others do to me! When you write a book, of course, the first thing you encounter is criticism, you will never please everyone, and it is part and parcel of writing a book.

You say that I said, 'All authors tackling a suspect book are lost causes'. Well, I don't recall using those words (although I stand to be corrected) but I may have said that writing a suspect book is a 'lost cause' for an author. Absolutely any author writing a suspect book will not avoid some bias, selectivity and personal interpretation. There has to be these ingredients, else you wouldn't be able to write such a book. And some of the suspect books are amongst the most entertaining. A Ripper author will be at his most vulnerable when writing a suspect book.

Some of my statements might seem contradictory (don't most human beings make contradictory, or seemingly contradictory statements at some time or other?). But citing what I wrote sixteen years ago in a current context is both unfair and misleading. It is certainly wrong to call it hypocritical. For, if we are sensible, our views and opinions, even beliefs, will change over the years as we learn and internalise new information and, perhaps, our ideas modify or mature. Certainly my perception of the Ripper mystery has changed greatly over the years, once I used to believe it could be solved, now I know it can't.

I thank you for your kind comments about my book and certainly look forward to seeing yours. I always told Rob that a Kozminski book was needed and that he should write it, but I never pretended that I regarded Kozminski as anything more than a viable suspect and that I doubted the perceived authority accorded to Anderson. Likewise you must see your Le Grand book published, a book is needed on that fascinating character. Sure you will make mistakes, there will be corrections by others when it is published, and you will learn new information after publication. All that is par for the course. But it should not deter you in your efforts.

I often return to Paul Begg and myself. Despite our differences and some of our past acrimonious exchanges, and if I'm honest, I like and respect Paul and cannot but admire his enormous contribution to our subject. The situation, over the years, has been exacerbated by the 'diary' nonsense and the very, very bad relationship that Paul and Melvin Harris had. The fact that Melvin could be very pompous didn't help either. But Melvin was a close friend of mine which put me in an awkward position. To know the man you would find he was very knowledgeable, had a wicked sense of humour and, if he was your friend he was a staunch one. When I lost my younger brother in 2001 Melvin was a great help to me over the phone and chatted me through some hard days. It was a side of Melvin that others didn't see.

[Stewart P Evans]

Lawende's words...

Quote mariab:
Did Lawende manage to identify Eddowes at the morgue?
Yep, that's what I was thinking, and I'm under the impression that Eddowes' skirt was distinctive.
Ergo, Schwartz did indeed have a better look than Lawende.
Unless Schwartz's story was partly fabricated (as I'm trying to investigate) and he saw Stride first as a dead body in Dutfield's Yard – to put it very bluntly. :-)
...

Not quite.

In Lawende's words, '...I saw a woman. She was standing with her face towards a man. I saw only her back. She had her hand on his chest. The man was taller than she was. She had a black jacket and a black bonnet. I have seen the articles which it was stated belonged to her at the police station. My belief is that they were the same clothes which I had seen upon the Deceased. She appeared to me short...'

Schwartz did not see 'Stride first as a dead body in Dutfield's Yard'. He identified her body at the mortuary.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Research Mistakes'

...
Left Field is, as Stewart mentioned, not unexpected as he has continually refused to admit to the research mistakes in his Tumblety book, which has readers to this day. Stewart and I have spoken of these issues on the phone and so I feel that when he accuses an author of bias towards a suspect, he should first acknowledge his own mishaps and not blame co-authors or publishers. Nice and Pleasant thread for you, maybe, but not for me.
That is all.
JM

They are not 'research mistakes' (what is a research mistake?). They are omissions caused by lack of full research, which was impossible at the time for the reasons given. The Conover/Dunham aspect is a prime example. Below is a 1954 publication giving Dunham's alias (from my collection), pity I didn't have it in 1995.

[mariab]

Schwartz and Lawende

Schwartz did not see 'Stride first as a dead body in Dutfield's Yard'. He identified her body at the mortuary.

I was referring to the possibility that Schwartz might have been related to the IWEC and his testimony influenced by William Wess, including Pipeman's physical description fitting a suspect known to have subsequently obstructed the Stride investigation. I'm currently trying to investigate a Schwartz Hungarian/Polish anarchist orator with poor English skills documentedly connected to William Wess in 1902-1905, plus I'm hoping to be able to investigate the relations/conflicts between the IWEC and the WVC pertaining to this. This will be discussed in an article, as long as I finish with some extensive research, which doesn't even promise to be fruitful.

For a host of different reasons (most of them quoted often enough by other posters) I tend to believe that Lawende was the Jewish witness involved in the ID of the Jewish suspect in question in this thread – whether the Jewish suspect was Kozminsky or not.

Nevertheless, IF Schwartz' story is true, it appears that he might have had a better look at Stride than Lawende at Eddowes, without going all the way to exaggerating heights such as claiming that “Schwartz had a great look at the scene“. It wouldn't be the first time that Tom exaggerates or makes a gaffe on the boards, but I'd have to admit that in his articles he knows enough to avoid such. Or maybe, it's the editors. :-) (Don?)

[Stewart P Evans]

Good Luck

I was referring to the possibility that Schwartz might have been related to the IWEC and his testimony influenced by William Wess, including Pipeman's physical description fitting a suspect known to have subsequently obstructed the Stride investigation. I'm currently trying to investigate a Schwartz Hungarian/Polish anarchist orator with poor English skills documentedly connected to William Wess in 1902-1905, plus I'm hoping to be able to investigate the relations/conflicts between the IWEC and the WVC pertaining to this. This will be discussed in an article, as long as I finish with some extensive research, which doesn't even promise to be fruitful.
...

Good luck...

[mariab]

editor's pressure on authors to come to conclusions

By the by, talking of editors and pertaining to my post #858 about the necessity of suspect-oriented books to be selective but not “biased“, a VERY important factor often forgotten where criticism is issued is the pressure applied on authors by editors. Not only pertaining to deadlines for producing the text, but pertaining to marketing as well. Thus we've had different titles for Paul Begg's The facts, not to mention the catastrophic addition of “case closed“ to the (also catastrophically “researched“) Cornwell book.
(With a thousand apologies to Paul Begg for citing him in the same breath with Cornwell!!)

Good luck...

Thank you so much. I'll need it all the way, plus the Arbeter Fraint translation project, financed by Lynn Cates and related to this research, will need it too, also concretely. (As in co-financing.)

[jmenges]

They are not 'research mistakes' (what is a research mistake?). They are omissions caused by lack of full research, which was impossible at the time for the reasons given. The Conover/Dunham aspect is a prime example. Below is a 1954 publication giving Dunham's alias (from my collection), pity I didn't have it in 1995.

[ATTACH]12591[/ATTACH]

Thanks, Stewart, for that snippet. I do believe that is one of the books I read mentioning the alias.

JM

[Stewart P Evans]

Any time

Thanks, Stewart, for that snippet. I do believe that is one of the books I read mentioning the alias.
JM

That's okay, any time Jon.

[Stewart P Evans]

I see...

They are not 'research mistakes' (what is a research mistake?). They are omissions caused by lack of full research, which was impossible at the time for the reasons given...

I see that I appear to have answered my own question in post # 851, how's that for contradictory statements? We all make them.

[The Good Michael]

I'm starting to see some harmony on this thread. It's nice... like Mccartney and Stevie Wonder and Ebony and Ivory, side by side on my piano keyboard.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

From Jack the Ripper and the Case For Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect, by Robert House, Hoboken NJ, 2011, page 200 -

'As a result of these statements, Robert Anderson has since become perhaps the most controversial figure in all of Ripperology, and a number of Ripperologists have dismissed his statements completely, characterizing him as incompetent, boastful, and untrustworthy. But one wonders whether such criticism is based on objective judgment of Anderson's character or simply on a reluctance to accept that that the most fascinating and baffling of unsolved mysteries was indeed solved more than a hundred years ago, with little applause or fanfare.'

I think that just about sets out your totally impartial and unbiased take on Anderson Rob.

As far as Anderson is concerned another nail in his coffin is the fact that being in the position he was is in and with all his letters and memos that he would have been writing and sending internally there is not one mention of any of this in an official document or memo, that in itself speaks volumes.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As far as Anderson is concerned another nail in his coffin is the fact that being in the position he was is in and with all his letters and memos that he would have been writing and sending internally there is not one mention of any of this in an official document or memo, that in itself speaks volumes.

I disagree.

Clearly, supporting official documents would lend weight to the ID, but a dearth of such documents is not 'a nail in the coffin'.

Plus, the burden of proof falls on the accuser, so in the event Anderson is being acccused of lying then someone needs to prove it; and the 'more evidence should exist' line of argument does not disprove the evidence that does exist.

If you just focus on what Anderson and Swanson are suggesting, there isn't much out of sync really:

Suspect and witness Jewish - agreed.
Seaside Home v Asylum - asylums opened up wings/sections named 'Seaside Homes', so there isn't necessarily a contradiction.
Positive identification - agreed.

The meat of the story is agreed upon. They have a couple of details out, e.g. the dying in an asylum part, well, as they recalled the event 20 years down the line it would be a surprise to me were all details to marry up.

Swanson is writing his notes to Anderson's work. Swanson's notes are not intended for consumption by the general public. So, who is he lying to? Himself?

Oh, and as Feigenbaum is not mentioned in the Anderson's official records, does it speak volumes?

I think consistency needs to be applied across all of the source material, and were you to put together a check list of criteria to be used to compare such material, then I think Swanson's statement in particular would feature high up the list of 'good source material' (and compare favourably).