Kosminski Identification Questions

[Stewart P Evans]

Aware

Yet there has been a controversial recent article in Examiner 3 by John Malcolm, challenging Philip Sugden's conclusion, and demanding what Mr. Malcolm sees as a long needed re-examination of the evidence in regard to Aaron Kozminski. I most absolutely didn't appreciate the tone of the article in question, but I considered it nevertheless an interesting and worthy issue to raise/explore. I don't expect the Malcolm essay to have been discussed in Rob House's book, since the Malcolm essay is much more recent than the Rob House book.
...

I am well aware of John's article and 'where he is coming from'. He is a convinced Andersonite. However, John knows his subject well and has written some very interesting and thought-provoking material, including an excellent book.

In this case John's opinions are very different from Sugden's and he was railing against Sugden for his harsh treatment of Anderson (it was harsh). Opinions being what they are, you have to read the sources and see whose opinion you agree with.

[Stewart P Evans]

Reconsider

You mean apart from the fact that two experts have confirmed its in Swanson's hand writing?
Pirate

Would you like to reconsider that answer? Please name the two experts and state the words they have used in confirming it is in Swanson's handwriting. No handwriting can, of course, confirm such a thing. He can only offer his expert opinion. And experts often disagree with each other.

[Stewart P Evans]

Theory

And the decent theory?
Does he plumb for Chapman?
Pirate

There is no decent theory, and Sugden acknowledges that fact. He doesn't 'plumb [sic] for Chapman', he agrees with Jonathan Goodman that, 'Of those [suspects] named, I think the least unlikely is George Chapman.'

[Phil H]

Either way, not the kind of chap that I would trust.

Anderson was a secret service man - in modern parlance akin to someone in MI5 or the FBI or CIA - a man who worked with misinformation, a world of "mirrors" as it has often been described.

We know he was capable of bending truth and even forgery - and that had been lhis life for decades, so it would have been a habit.

Thus, in saying anything we surely need to analyse his words and motives in writing his memoirs, and a number of possibilities occur to me:

a) he was telling the absolute truth (seems questionable);

b) he was being self-justifying (possible in part);

c) he was engaging in some wishful thinking to make himself look better than he was (quite possible and very human);

d) he was lying (dangerous when men like Swanson were around who would know otherwise);

e) he lied with a purpose, either to misdirect or to cover-up (I would rule neither out given Anderson's past);

f) we are mis-reading what he wrote because we lack evidence available to him (quite possible IMHO).

There are probably others, but I think I have covered the main areas. Parts of several might be a realistic assumption.

As I have said in a separate post on the subject, I believe we should be cautious in seeing Swanson's marginalia as corroboration of Anderson - it could simply be a repeat based on what Anderson had told DSS augmenting his book. There is NOTHING in the content or grammar that would rule that out.

Phil

[lynn cates]

truth

Hello Belinda.

"I think they believed what they wrote I don't think it was some kind of bluff to fool the public into thinking they hadn't stuffed up such a notorious case."

Perhaps so, but regretfully, we may never know. Anderson bragged about bending the truth. Either he was:

1. Telling the truth.

or

2. Lying

If the first, then he is a truth bender and hence a dissembler. But if the second . . . . Either way, not the kind of chap that I would trust.

Cheers.
LC

[belinda]

Hello Belinda.

"I think both Anderson and Swanson were absolutely certain of what they wrote."

Why is that? It is not clear that, even though Swanson in fact wrote the "Marginalia" that it was his considered opinion.

And as regards brave, brave Sir Robert, it is not clear why (to paraphrase professor Porter) we should trust a professional dissembler.

Cheers.
LC

I don't think they were deliberately lying to save their reputations or anything like that. I think they believed what they wrote I don't think it was some kind of bluff to fool the public into thinking they hadn't stuffed up such a notorious case.

What did Anderson have to gain by making the whole thing up?

[mariab]

Its invested with so much importance as its the only piece of evidence we have against any individual. Even if this evidence is flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynn cates
Hello Jason. Isn't it on a piece with the Littlechild letter and the 2 MacNaughten memoranda?
As far as I can tell Lynn those examples you site only contain conjecture. No actual evidence has been handed down to us other than a supposed ID.

This is not entirely correct, Jason. We have evidence pertaining to Tumblety, and we have evidence pertaining to Le Grand. Neither of this is “conjecture“, including the Littlechild letter (which might be accurate OR a mixup) and the Macnaghten Memoranda (which most clearly contains 2 mixups).

[mariab]

Philip Sugden is a trained historian, he has 'interrogated the document' etc. and he has concluded it is not a reliable source or a good theory.

Yet there has been a controversial recent article in Examiner 3 by John Malcolm, challenging Philip Sugden's conclusion, and demanding what Mr. Malcolm sees as a long needed re-examination of the evidence in regard to Aaron Kozminski. I most absolutely didn't appreciate the tone of the article in question, but I considered it nevertheless an interesting and worthy issue to raise/explore. I don't expect the Malcolm essay to have been discussed in Rob House's book, since the Malcolm essay is much more recent than the Rob House book.

Evidence? I'm wondering what corroborated evidence is presented in the Marginalia? Is "the hands behind the back" corroborated? What about his dying just afterwards? Are we certain about "the seaside home"?

Agree at 100%, Lynn.

Most of all, are we certain that Swanson even wrote this stuff?

We are reasonably certain.

Quote Phil:"we are not entitled to throw out the marginalia just because it contains errors."
Indeed so. But perhaps we are entitled to deemphasise it whilst spending scarce resources on other avenues more likely to bear fruit.

I'm absolutely for de-emphasizing it too. This document has been either considered sacro-saint or hatefully dismissed for some time now. As for other avenues of research, it appears that Rob House has taken care of just that, but the sources pertaining to a police investigation (IF such investigation ever took place) have not survived (about which I'm not surprised). But I'm particularly interested in reading what Mr. House has found pertaining to asylums. (Mr. Houses' book recently arrived at my Berlin address, but I don't have it with me here in Reykjavik, where it remains to be seen when I'll be able to reach the continent, after the current vulcano erruption.)

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff. Perhaps we have different definitions of certainty. I prefer the Cartesian one.

Cheers.
LC

Decarte philosophy and mathamatics? odd.

I'll stick to the reports, the evidence and having photographed it at close quarters..

My own eyes

Pirate

[lynn cates]

Descartes

Hello Jeff. Perhaps we have different definitions of certainty. I prefer the Cartesian one.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Most of all, are we certain that Swanson even wrote this stuff?

Cheers.
LC

You mean apart from the fact that two experts have confirmed its in Swanson's hand writing?

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Philip Sugden is a trained historian, he has 'interrogated the document' etc. and he has concluded it is not a reliable source or a good theory.

And the decent theory?

Does he plumb for Chapman?

Pirate

[lynn cates]

dissembler

Hello Belinda.

"I think both Anderson and Swanson were absolutely certain of what they wrote."

Why is that? It is not clear that, even though Swanson in fact wrote the "Marginalia" that it was his considered opinion.

And as regards brave, brave Sir Robert, it is not clear why (to paraphrase professor Porter) we should trust a professional dissembler.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cahnge of emphasis

Hello Phil.

"we are not entitled to throw out the marginalia just because it contains errors."

Indeed so. But perhaps we are entitled to deemphasise it whilst spending scarce resources on other avenues more likely to bear fruit.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Jason. Evidence? I'm wondering what corroborated evidence is presented in the Marginalia? Is "the hands behind the back" corroborated? What about his dying just afterwards? Are we certain about "the seaside home"?

Most of all, are we certain that Swanson even wrote this stuff?

Cheers.
LC