Kosminski Identification Questions

[Stewart P Evans]

In view of...

In view of remarks appearing on this thread I have to say that Paul and I both look upon each other as formidable opposition. I hope he doesn't mind me saying that.

I'm afraid that I am sometimes quite waspy and and aggressive in my debating (a failing I have tried to control with little success) and I don't want anyone to think that I do not respect or think a lot of Paul. Because I do. He forces me to re-examine a lot of areas and he knows what he is talking about.

[Stewart P Evans]

When...

...
You wrote, “For those who do not accept Anderson’s credentials as flawless…” from which one infers that there are those who do accept his credentials as flawless… But who are those people? Martin, who is the kindest of all commentators, hardly presents a picture of Anderson as a man who was flawless.
You then quote Martin, but follow it by saying “Given all the secret service work Anderson was involved in over the years, it is hard to imagine that he did not frequently resort to deception and untruths of one sort or another” and in so doing you imply that Martin did not consider that, yet Martin made that very point himself: “As an ex-Secret Serviceman, he had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear….”
It's not really a fair or balanced presentation of the pro-Anderson case and is heavily influenced by your idea that people are intent on eulogising Anderson as a paragon of virtue, "flawless".
And whilst the foregoing s critical of you, my purpose in citing it is simply to demonstrate why people see you as anti-Anderson and making unfair comments.
...

When I refer to those who accept Anderson's credentials as flawless I do so within the context those evaluating his claims about knowing the identity of Jack the Ripper. They say that they are not the same as his Secret Service activities where he may have prevaricated. His activities as a whole should be taken into consideration, but those who argue for the infallibility of his words on the Ripper divorce the shortcomings exhibited in other areas from that particular equation. The two cannot be separated.

I cannot agree, you see, with the claim in the A-Z that 'he had a peculiarly scrupulous regard for the truth and would never have lied directly though when he thought anti-social criminals [is there any other sort?] were involved he was prepared to mislead with half-truths or mental reservation...His statements about the Ripper's identity are far too direct to fall under this heading.' Obviously we are never going to completely agree on this one and others will have to draw their own conclusions.

[mariab]

To repeat myself from yesterday, this is a fascinating, incredibly informative discussion, offering me awareness on several aspects of the last 20 years in Ripperology, so thank you both so much, Mr. Begg (Paul, but it feels completely disrespectful addressing you as “Paul“ on the boards) and Mr. Evans.

(...) insofar as anyone gives a toss about the opinions of two old farts in their endless taradiddle about Anderson. (...) History is a fluid subject, it changes as new information comes to light or as old information is reinterpreted, so what Martin thought, I thought, Sugden thought, you thought five years ago or ten or fifteen or twenty just doesn't much matter anymore.

I most definitely am interested in following such discussions conducted by self-proclaimed “old farts“. Also, despite the fact that our knowledge is continuisly shifting due to new information coming to light, it is important to be aware of the old lit and knowledge in Ripperology (even if incomplete and/or corrected by now), not only to be able to assess it and quote it accurately, but also in the expectation that some day an accurate “History of Ripperology“ might come out. There's Ripperology by Robin Odell which came out in 2006, but it naturally doesn't cover the recent developments of the last 7 years.

I am perfectly well aware that all historians have biases of one sort or another, which is why some people have argued that there is no such thing as unbiased history

Very true. “Biases“ may be too strong a word, but it's almost humanly impossible to avoid “subjectivity“, even with the best intentions. Even Sugden has demonstrated subjectivity, pertaining to Kozminski, Chapman, and the Stride case.

Also thank you so very much, Mr. Evans and Mr. Begg, for informing us about
the Mallon via Frederick Moir Bussey story and Anderson's involvement in questioning Mallon. I assume that Bussey interviewed Mallon contemporaneously? Also, I'd love to know more about “Mallon's claim that Millen humbugged Anderson over the Jubilee Plot, {which} is countered to some extent by Monro's concerns over the event in his unpublished memoirs“ as mentioned by Mr. Begg.
Thank you both so much, again.

[jason_c]

I like to think that people find our debates informative, if not entertaining. But you are probably right.

You both remind me of these two debating giants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEQcsuXnnnc

[Stewart P Evans]

Clever remark

...
I think you are anti-Anderson and that you have indeed made unfair comments. Just to take The Scotland Yard Files, wherein you wrote: ‘Those who have based their theorising on Anderson’s words have, of course, sought to establish that he was beyond reproach.’
Well, have they? Have they really try to establish that he was beyond reproach, or did they simply find that he was beyond reproach? And was this something they "sought" or was it something that emerged from their research? There is one hell of a difference between looking for evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion and looking for evidence from which a conclusion is drawn.
...

I was going to make a clever remark here, but I realise that in putting The Scotland Yard Files you made a typographical slip which we are all capable of doing. I guess that the statment may be regarded as bit of a blanket one. But, to my mind, there are those who have sought to make Anderson's Ripper claims as beyond reproach and above question. Proper research, in fact, actually reveals that his statements should be treated with caution, as Sugden warns.

[Stewart P Evans]

Perhaps

...
...
It may be an overstatement that you think anyone who gives credence to Anderson is biased up to the gills, but, as the last few posts illustrate, you are very ready to attribute ulterior motives to an individual's actions. I would also say that it is untrue that too much importance has been attached to Anderson's identification. Quite the reverse is probably true: because the received doctrine is that the Ripper's identity was unknown, it is felt that Anderson has to be wrong and all sorts of theories and arguments have been advanced to support that, going way back to Don's book, Knight's (which Martin railed against), through Sugden, down to the message boards, which are far from full of pro-Anderson posts. The balance is and always has been strongly tipped against Anderson.
...

Yes, perhaps I sometimes see 'ulterior motives' where none may exist. That would be as a result of being a cynical ex-police officer who sees little good in a lot of people (including himself). We went through a long period when the scales were tipped in Anderson's favour but, it is true, the balance does appear to have shifted. The Internet has totally transformed perceptions of the case and you and I have both witnessed the development of that phenomenon.

[Stewart P Evans]

Like to think...

Yes, I'm afraid they will, insofar as anyone gives a toss about the opinions of two old farts in their endless taradiddle about Anderson.
...

I like to think that people find our debates informative, if not entertaining. But you are probably right.

[PaulB]

The issue of whether Anderson would have lied or not is important. If I have misrepresented something I suggest that if you produce the offending piece I shall address it.

It is rather odd for you to now to state that it was 'an argument advanced only by Martin some 20-years ago and in the specific context of replying to charges made by Stephen Knight. It's living in the past.' I really cannot work that one out, I really can't. Are you saying that Martin's claim about Anderson's veracity is relevant only in the context of a response to Stephen Knight? Living in the past? Then why repeat it in extenso in 2004 in The Facts and with no reference to Knight? You've lost me.

I agree that whether Anderson would have lied or not is important, but what Martin actually concluded was that Anderson wouldn't have lied to a general readership to enhance his personal or departmental reputation, which isn't the same thing as saying he wouldn't lie per se, which is what you have suggested elsewhere. Nor, as said, does it appear as a supporting argument in the work of other people. I cited Martin's conclusion in 2004 (seven years ago!) and I would cite it again today because in my opinion it has not been satisfactorily addressed. However, Martin wrote what he did in 1986/7 and based it on an assessment of such source material as was available to him at that time. Also, in writing what he did, Martin was specifically addressing criticisms made by Stephen Knight, so we should take that viewpoint into consideration. However, since Martin wrote his book research has revealed numerous sources which present Anderson in a different light and these need to be researched more fully. So whilst it may be interesting and even relevant to trace how and why thinking in the past got us to where we are today, it isn't actually getting us anywhere. It would be far more relevant to dissect Bussey and Mallon, for example, than it is to worry over Martin Fido's conclusions like a terrier with a dead rat.

Harping on about old hat research that was responding to even older research doesn't get anyone anywhere these days.

[PaulB]

The phrase was, actually, 'convinced Andersonite', sorry to nit-pick.

It is utterly wrong to ascribe to me a conviction 'that those who give weight to Anderson are completely and utterly unable to assess evidence objectively', I have never said that. But I know how you hate any suggestion that you may have any bias. I regard people such as Rob and John as excellent researchers with intelligent minds who have produced some essential work on the subject. You are now misrepresenting me.

I am perfectly well aware that all historians have biases of one sort or another, which is why some people have argued that there is no such thing as unbiased history, but you think that people look for evidence to fit theories and even come close to manufacturing it, thus you attribute to Martin or me a "need" to show that Anderson would not lie.

We are all capable of bias, and if a student of the case is assessing the evidence only on the published works of certain authors then he may not have the full evidence available for properly assessing a source such as Anderson. I, in fact, warn people off my first book because it is a 'suspect book' which has to be selective and biased in favour of the suspect.

I am sure that most intelligent researchers are capable of objective assessment, if they are presented with the fullest possible source material and have not been swayed by the tendentious writings of other authors who may have reached some odd or self-serving conclusions.

Well, the fullest possible source material is generally impossible for the average reader, so they are forced to rely on published books in which the source material has been filtered through the historian who has studied said material for a lifetime, and as historians can be tendentious the general reader is in a no-win situation.

[PaulB]

The offending sentence appears in my post #88 where I state, 'For the convinced Andersonites these words are sufficient to make them the 'best source' for a possible solution to the case as they believe that Anderson would not have lied or deceived in his published secular writings.'

I did not mention Martin but, as we know, that claim was made by Martin back in 1987 and has been repeated many times since by you and in the A-Z. Those who espouse the Anderson/Polish Jew theory take Anderson's words as the truth believing that he would not lie in his book. That claim has been made to me many times in the past. Are you now saying that people such as John Malcolm and Rob House do not agree that 'Anderson would not have lied or deceived in his published secular writings'?

Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that as far as I am aware it isn't a claim they [I]have[I] made. Neither have I.

[PaulB]

I am afraid that people are going to have to read and understand this debate and draw their own conclusions.

Yes, I'm afraid they will, insofar as anyone gives a toss about the opinions of two old farts in their endless taradiddle about Anderson.

I do not have the opinion 'that anyone who gives Anderson more than passing credence is biased up to the gills', that would be a crass assumption. My opinion is that too much importance has been attached to Anderson's identification claims and in support of those claims a one-sided view of Anderson and his veracity has been given in the past. And that view has been accepted by a lot of readers who know no better.

It may be an overstatement that you think anyone who gives credence to Anderson is biased up to the gills, but, as the last few posts illustrate, you are very ready to attribute ulterior motives to an individual's actions. I would also say that it is untrue that too much importance has been attached to Anderson's identification. Quite the reverse is probably true: because the received doctrine is that the Ripper's identity was unknown, it is felt that Anderson has to be wrong and all sorts of theories and arguments have been advanced to support that, going way back to Don's book, Knight's (which Martin railed against), through Sugden, down to the message boards, which are far from full of pro-Anderson posts. The balance is and always has been strongly tipped against Anderson.

In redressing the balance and presenting much more information on Anderson I have been accused of being anti-Anderson and making unfair comments about him. I do not think that is the case as I speak as I find. There are many good things about his books and they are very useful. But, as with any such source, they have to be looked at in the proper context and with an understanding of the content.

I think you are anti-Anderson and that you have indeed made unfair comments. Just to take The Scotland Yard Files, wherein you wrote: ‘Those who have based their theorising on Anderson’s words have, of course, sought to establish that he was beyond reproach.’

Well, have they? Have they really try to establish that he was beyond reproach, or did they simply find that he was beyond reproach? And was this something they "sought" or was it something that emerged from their research? There is one hell of a difference between looking for evidence to fit a preconceived conclusion and looking for evidence from which a conclusion is drawn.

You wrote, “For those who do not accept Anderson’s credentials as flawless…” from which one infers that there are those who do accept his credentials as flawless… But who are those people? Martin, who is the kindest of all commentators, hardly presents a picture of Anderson as a man who was flawless.

You then quote Martin, but follow it by saying “Given all the secret service work Anderson was involved in over the years, it is hard to imagine that he did not frequently resort to deception and untruths of one sort or another” and in so doing you imply that Martin did not consider that, yet Martin made that very point himself: “As an ex-Secret Serviceman, he had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear….”

It's not really a fair or balanced presentation of the pro-Anderson case and is heavily influenced by your idea that people are intent on eulogising Anderson as a paragon of virtue, "flawless".

And whilst the foregoing s critical of you, my purpose in citing it is simply to demonstrate why people see you as anti-Anderson and making unfair comments.

I find Martin far too biased for my liking and cannot agree with many of his conclusions. But I really do not wish to stray into that area. It's fine to base study on Anderson's claims and to theorise as regards his suspect and conclusions. Such study and research is valid and some very good people are doing it. From all this it must be clear that my feelings towards Anderson are ambivalent.

History is a fluid subject, it changes as new information comes to light or as old information is reinterpreted, so what Martin thought, I thought, Sugden thought, you thought five years ago or ten or fifteen or twenty just doesn't much matter anymore. Bickering doesn't get anyone anywhere. What matters is how the information we have today is interpreted and understood and it is interesting to see how sources such as Anderson, never the clearest of writers, are perceived and understood, and one feels that the files of Dublin Castle and elsewhere might shed more light on the activities of Anderson, Monro and Co, none of whom, one suspects, had very clean hands. I look forward to the future.

[Stewart P Evans]

Issue

...
...
But the fact is that the whole issue of whether Anderson would have lied or not is far, far more important to you and is referenced by you a great deal, and has even been misrepresented by you as an effort to paint Anderson as some sort of whiter than white paragon, which has no basis in truth whatsoever. You also attribute it to all "Andersonites", when in truth it is an argument advanced only by Martin some 20-years ago and in the specific context of replying to charges made by Stephen Knight. It's living in the past.

The issue of whether Anderson would have lied or not is important. If I have misrepresented something I suggest that if you produce the offending piece I shall address it.

It is rather odd for you to now to state that it was 'an argument advanced only by Martin some 20-years ago and in the specific context of replying to charges made by Stephen Knight. It's living in the past.' I really cannot work that one out, I really can't. Are you saying that Martin's claim about Anderson's veracity is relevant only in the context of a response to Stephen Knight? Living in the past? Then why repeat it in extenso in 2004 in The Facts and with no reference to Knight? You've lost me.

[Stewart P Evans]

Actually

...
...
Furthermore, I think the phrase "committed Andersonite" reflects your personal and erroneous conviction that those who give weight to Anderson are completely and utterly unable to assess evidence objectively.
...

The phrase was, actually, 'convinced Andersonite', sorry to nit-pick.

It is utterly wrong to ascribe to me a conviction 'that those who give weight to Anderson are completely and utterly unable to assess evidence objectively', I have never said that. But I know how you hate any suggestion that you may have any bias. I regard people such as Rob and John as excellent researchers with intelligent minds who have produced some essential work on the subject. You are now misrepresenting me.

We are all capable of bias, and if a student of the case is assessing the evidence only on the published works of certain authors then he may not have the full evidence available for properly assessing a source such as Anderson. I, in fact, warn people off my first book because it is a 'suspect book' which has to be selective and biased in favour of the suspect.

I am sure that most intelligent researchers are capable of objective assessment, if they are presented with the fullest possible source material and have not been swayed by the tendentious writings of other authors who may have reached some odd or self-serving conclusions.

[Stewart P Evans]

Offending sentence

Actually, I only entered this "discussion" to counter your attribution of Martin's conclusion to all so-called "committed Andersonites". I don't use Martin's argument and nor, to my knowledge do John Malcolm or Rob House or anyone else who might fall within that categorisation of "committed Andersonite".
...

The offending sentence appears in my post #88 where I state, 'For the convinced Andersonites these words are sufficient to make them the 'best source' for a possible solution to the case as they believe that Anderson would not have lied or deceived in his published secular writings.'

I did not mention Martin but, as we know, that claim was made by Martin back in 1987 and has been repeated many times since by you and in the A-Z. Those who espouse the Anderson/Polish Jew theory take Anderson's words as the truth believing that he would not lie in his book. That claim has been made to me many times in the past. Are you now saying that people such as John Malcolm and Rob House do not agree that 'Anderson would not have lied or deceived in his published secular writings'?

[PaulB]

If you can't see that this whole debate is about the way that the question of identification and Anderson's veracity has been presented then please keep out of it.

Actually, I only entered this "discussion" to counter your attribution of Martin's conclusion to all so-called "committed Andersonites". I don't use Martin's argument and nor, to my knowledge do John Malcolm or Rob House or anyone else who might fall within that categorisation of "committed Andersonite".

Furthermore, I think the phrase "committed Andersonite" reflects your personal and erroneous conviction that those who give weight to Anderson are completely and utterly unable to assess evidence objectively.

For example, I have no “need” to show that Anderson was unable to lie in The Lighter Side… I am very well aware that memoirs are broadly self-serving and potentially unreliable, thus they are treated with due caution and there are various established methods of testing an author’s reliability which historians and biographers use all the time, not the least of which is testing the reliability of other claims the author makes. So therefore far from needing to show that Anderson would not have lied, it actually matters nought to me whether Anderson's religious convictions would have prevented him from lying in his memoirs or not, though it is a consideration certainly worth noting, and I do note it.

But the fact is that the whole issue of whether Anderson would have lied or not is far, far more important to you and is referenced by you a great deal, and has even been misrepresented by you as an effort to paint Anderson as some sort of whiter than white paragon, which has no basis in truth whatsoever. You also attribute it to all "Andersonites", when in truth it is an argument advanced only by Martin some 20-years ago and in the specific context of replying to charges made by Stephen Knight. It's living in the past.