Plausibility of Kosminski

[mklhawley]

'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.'


...besides, your 'either or or' suggestion is faulty logic. The criticism does not come from an 'objective judgment of Anderson's character', it comes from an objective evaluation of contradictory evidence. AND it's not a case of dismissing his statements completely. Deception is best served with truth.

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

The one and only source document for the identification is Anderson's 1910 book and, more importantly, Swanson's annotated copy of that book.

Two points strike me with Swanson's notes:

1) These are notes not meant for the public. My understanding is that they were placed into the public domain by a relative. Assuming these are private notes, then who is he lying to? Himself? Why would he write something that he knew was pure fabrication knowing none of his contemporaries would see these notes?

2) Assuming these notes were never intended to enter the public domain, then why does he sign them? A signature is an audit trail for the purpose of the group knowing who did what and when in order to follow the trail. I don't understand why any man would sign notes intended only for his own consumption.

I tend to agree with Hunter in that Swanson was probably the man with the information and Anderson followed suit. And take away Anderson's 'confusion' as to whether or not the suspect was in asylum at the time of idenitifaction, and you have something like a coherent chapter.

[mklhawley]

Hi Stewart,

Honestly I cannot stomach your characterizing an author as biased or drawing inventive conclusions given your own track record while writing these exact type of what you call "suspect" books. All the time we have posters coming on the boards having read your book on Tumblety and you have not once, that I have seen, admitted that 'Jack the Ripper: The First American Serial Killer (US title) is riddled with supposition and speculation, and, most importantly for the uterus collection story, fails to connect Dunham with Conover.

I like you, but where I am coming from is hoping that you will behave better of your fellow authors on this subject, given your 16 year old, but still read, pile of mistakes and confusion.

JM

Not to sidetrack the thread.

What are you trying to say? 'Conover' was an alias used by Dunham.

[Abby Normal]

I will concede that I should have written that some Ripperologists are reluctant to accept 'that the most fascinating and baffling of mysteries may have been solved more than a hundred years ago...'

you dont have to concede anything. Its fine as it is.


part of the problem i have noticed in ripperworld is that if you don't add the "in my opinion, maybes etc" people yell at you for presenting it as fact, but if you do they say aha! your argument is only based on conjecture.

Damned if you do and damned if you dont.

[jmenges]

What are you trying to say? 'Conover' was an alias used by Dunham.

SPE, or Gainey, didn't know that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank you

Hi Stewart,
Honestly I cannot stomach your characterizing an author as biased or drawing inventive conclusions given your own track record while writing these exact type of what you call "suspect" books. All the time we have posters coming on the boards having read your book on Tumblety and you have not once, that I have seen, admitted that 'Jack the Ripper: The First American Serial Killer (US title) is riddled with supposition and speculation, and, most importantly for the uterus collection story, fails to connect Dunham with Conover.
I like you, but where I am coming from is hoping that you will behave better of your fellow authors on this subject, given your 16 year old, but still read, pile of mistakes and confusion.
JM
Not to sidetrack the thread.

Honestly Jon, I simply cannot stomach you.

I am not characterizing Rob as biased, he clearly is. He would probably be man enough to admit that. Although he does make a go of being fair and adding caveats. My suspect book was as selective and biased as any suspect book need be, has to be. But I do not carry such bias into these debates and I do not push any suspect. If you have any intelligence at all you can see where an author is using personal opinion and interpretation and what did I offer as hard fact proving Tumblety was the murderer?

The Conover/Dunham connection did not emerge until a couple of years after the book was published, and I had the information earlier than anyone on the boards. Even then the conclusions drawn have to be down to personal interpretation. But what are you suggesting here? That I deliberately suppressed it. I hope not, for I can prove we knew nothing about it when the book was written. It's easy to write with hindsight years after a book has been published, and after the advent of digital searching online.

You seem to have sidetracked the thread. But thank you for the wonderful description of my first book as 'a pile of mistakes and confusion.' Very kind of you. Please do not bother contacting me in any shape or form in future.

[Stewart P Evans]

Information

And just for your information, I know Rob personally, he has stayed with us here in England, and I like him a lot. There's nothing at all personal in it, I am merely speaking as I find. That said, it's an excellent book and I do (and already have) thoroughly recommend it.

[jmenges]

Slap!

Well, as I have told you, simple research into books on the assassination of Lincoln would have told you that they we're one in the same person.

But I need not side track the thread.

Take care Stewart,

JM

[mklhawley]

SPE, or Gainey, didn't know that.

First of all, Dunham never stated it was a uterus collection: One side of this room was entirely occupied with cases, outwardly resembling wardrobes. When the doors were opened quite a museum was revealed--tiers of shelves with glass jars and cases, some round and others square, filled with all sorts of antomical (sic) specimens. The 'doctor' placed on a table a dozen or more jars containing, as he said, the matrices of every class of women. Nearly a half of one of these cases was occupied exclusively with these specimens. You're mixing the story us with the American medical student story.

Second, your assumption seems to be that because Dunham was deceptive during the Civil War, thus, the above statement is a lie. Dunham was a union double agent provacatour using deception as a tool. There is no direct evidence that it was a lie. You are basing your belief upon two ripperologists with agendas to dismiss Tumblety as a suspect -bias. The anatomical specimen story may very well be a deception, but it is certainly no cause for someone to admit they were wrong -when they could still be correct.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not An Excuse

Well, as I have told you, simple research into books on the assassination of Lincoln would have told you that they we're one in the same person.
But I need not side track the thread.
Take care Stewart,
JM

Paul Gainey conducted the research on the Lincoln side of things, although I am not using that as an excuse, merely to explain why I am not in a position to answer any criticism on that side of things.

We had ten months in which to write the whole book, and that was very hard work, especially as we were both in full time employment with the Suffolk Constabulary and I was on shift work with only one weekend a month off. I don't expect you to accept this mitigation but, I felt, it was as well to get it on record. I do have books on the Lincoln assassination but they don't have Dunham/Conover in them. And why did it take so long for anyone else to discover this connection? Six years or more wasn't it?

Anyway I shall have to go, I'm researching for another 'pile of mistakes and confusion.' Thank you again for your kind remarks, much appreciated.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And, asylums opened 'seaside homes'.

So, there is not necessarily an Anderson/Swanson contradiction.

What are we left with? They believed he had died early on - minor detail, really.

On balance, I think they were straight up: there was an ID and he was identified.

[Stewart P Evans]

Many thanks

First of all, Dunham never stated it was a uterus collection: One side of this room was entirely occupied with cases, outwardly resembling wardrobes. When the doors were opened quite a museum was revealed--tiers of shelves with glass jars and cases, some round and others square, filled with all sorts of antomical (sic) specimens. The 'doctor' placed on a table a dozen or more jars containing, as he said, the matrices of every class of women. Nearly a half of one of these cases was occupied exclusively with these specimens. You're mixing the story us with the American medical student story.
Second, it seems your assumption seems to be that because Dunham was deceptive during the Civil War the above statement is a lie. Dunham was a union double agent provacatour using decpetion as a tool. There is no direct evidence that it was a lie. You are basing your belief upon two ripperologists with agendas to dismiss Tumblety as a suspect -bias. The anatomical specimen story may very well be a deception, but it is certainly no cause for someone to admit they were wrong -when they could still be correct.

Many thanks for that, I have heard this response before, but there would be no point in me making it as I write 'piles of mistakes and confusion.'

[jmenges]

SPE,

I am leaving the boards permanently as well. You are much more of an enthusiast that I am, so I hope you'll stick around.

JM

Paul Gainey conducted the research on the Lincoln side of things, although I am not using that as an excuse, merely to explain why I am not in a position to answer any criticism on that side of things.

We had ten months in which to write the whole book, and that was very hard work, especially as we were both in full time employment with the Suffolk Constabulary and I was on shift work with only one weekend a month off. I don't expect you to accept this mitigation but, I felt, it was as well to get it on record. I do have books on the Lincoln assassination bu they don't have Dunham/Conover in them. And why did it take so long for anyone else to discover this connection? Six years or more wasn't it?

Anyway I shall have to go, I'm researching for another 'pile of mistakes and confusion.' Thank you again for your kind remarks, much appreciated.

[Stewart P Evans]

Paul Gainey conducted the research on the Lincoln side of things, although I am not using that as an excuse, merely to explain why I am not in a position to answer any criticism on that side of things.
We had ten months in which to write the whole book, and that was very hard work, especially as we were both in full time employment with the Suffolk Constabulary and I was on shift work with only one weekend a month off. I don't expect you to accept this mitigation but, I felt, it was as well to get it on record. I do have books on the Lincoln assassination but they don't have Dunham/Conover in them. And why did it take so long for anyone else to discover this connection? Six years or more wasn't it?
Anyway I shall have to go, I'm researching for another 'pile of mistakes and confusion.' Thank you again for your kind remarks, much appreciated.

Although I have bothered to obtain some works that mention Sanford Conover since, the below being one of them, published in 1866.

[jmenges]

Honestly Jon, I simply cannot stomach you

The Conover/Dunham connection did not emerge until a couple of years after the book was published, and I had the information earlier than anyone on the boards.

How ridiculously untrue.

Visit your local library.

JM