Kosminski Identification Questions

[Stewart P Evans]

Read

Here you go again, 'an old tactic'..! I don't indulge in tactics, I just object to people who spiral off on one argument after another so that the original point gets obscured and lost.
This started off with your blanket ascription to "committed Andersonites" a conclusion of Martin Fido's which as far as I am aware hasn't featured in anybody else's arguments, including mine, and is an ascription which typifies your dominant opinion that anyone who gives Anderson more than passing credence is biased up to the gills.

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

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.

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 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.

[PaulB]

No I am not, these things are germane to the whole debate. It's an old tactic of yours to try to focus on one tiny aspect to enable you to claim that anything else is either 'off topic' or 'not relevant'.

Here you go again, 'an old tactic'..! I don't indulge in tactics, I just object to people who spiral off on one argument after another so that the original point gets obscured and lost.

This started off with your blanket ascription to "committed Andersonites" a conclusion of Martin Fido's which as far as I am aware hasn't featured in anybody else's arguments, including mine, and is an ascription which typifies your dominant opinion that anyone who gives Anderson more than passing credence is biased up to the gills.

[PaulB]

'Bizarre', really??? Fine, you look upon Martin as 'a knowledgeable and informed source' and are accepting his subjective conclusion on one aspect of the man (his religion, which, by the way, I do have more than a passing knowledge of) as the be all and end all on his honesty and accuracy. Sorry, I don't agree with that (and I am not alone).

I can only shake my head in wonderment. Martin Fido is 'knowledgeable and informed', his conclusion is not 'subjective' but was based on a totally objective assessment of the evidence then available to him, and I am not accepting that conclusion, I am simply citing it as any balanced commentator should. Nor am I saying it is the 'be all and end all' of his honesty. These are your fancies, not reality.

Once again, Martin Fido concluded on the basis of his understanding of Anderson's religious convictions that Anderson would not have lied in his memoirs for personal or departmental kudos. I merely draw attention to this conclusion.

[Stewart P Evans]

One thing...

One thing I have to say is that Paul very early on recognised the importance of Anderson's background, the political situation and the relevance of the Irish situation. He has done much valuable work in this regard.

[PaulB]

Could someone clarify this point for me?
With many-many apologies for the newbie question.

The Andersonites always counter anything said against Anderson as politically motivated prejudice, even in the face of mounting criticism of Anderson from many contemporary sources. And remember, this book was published in 1910 in London and not a peep of protest was heard from Anderson who must have known about it and had a copy.

Hopefully there is no need to point out that Stewart's observation that 'The Andersonites always counter anything said against Anderson as politically motivated prejudice' is without foundation, except as it pertains to Churchill's comments in 1910, but I would concur that Mallon via Frederick Moir Bussey presents a very dismal picture of Anderson as self-important and easily duped. To what extent this is true is problematic, for as Clutterbuck points out, Mallon's claim that Millen humbugged Anderson over the Jubilee Plot is countered to some extent by Monro's concerns over the event in his unpublished memoirs. Nevertheless, Anderson walks from Bussey's pages looking a very sad and bedraggled man.

[Stewart P Evans]

If...

The thread is Kosminski Identification Question.
Pirate

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Misleading

...
No, I'm not misleading anyone. It is not unreasonable to assume that if he believed kudos in secret service work was to be gained from detecting crimes and prosecuting the offenders that he felt similarly about the detection of ordinary crimes, particularly ones of the magnitude of Jack the Ripper.
And I was not "trying to emphasise the truth of Anderson's words", I was simply observing that Anderson lacked a reason for lying.

Yes you are misleading. The quote of Anderson's that you use to say that he 'lacked a reason for lying' because there 'was no kudos' involved did not relate to, and could not be used to qualify, his remarks with regard to knowing the identity of the Ripper. And we now see that you are slipping in the words 'not unreasonable to assume' to justify your use of it. Why did you omit the important opening words of Anderson's comment, "For in Secret Service work..."

And it was not used by Anderson in the context of saying that in general terms kudos only attached to his Ripper remarks 'since the Ripper wasn't prosecuted.' Anderson's reason for using the observation on kudos was strictly in relation to Secret Service work where 'preventing outrages' carried no glory or recognition (as no one got to know about them) whereas if a plot was allowed to mature and come to fruition (the informer often acting as an agent provocateur) the rewards of a successful arrest and conviction followed.

You now say that it was an assumption, but you did not allow your readers to see that it was an assumption, nor to see it in its true context. It actually had nothing to do with his feelings about the non-conviction of the Ripper. With regard to the Ripper Anderson was claiming that they were not unsolved crimes at all, that the police knew the identity of the Ripper and that the Ripper had been 'safely caged in an asylum'.

[Jeff Leahy]

The thread is Kosminski Identification Question.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

No....

...
You are now shifting away from any discussion going on here to my article which was an objective assessment of Anderson. People won't know what you are talking about.
...

No I am not, these things are germane to the whole debate. It's an old tactic of yours to try to focus on one tiny aspect to enable you to claim that anything else is either 'off topic' or 'not relevant'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fine

Bizarre. A knowledgeable and informed source makes an assessment based on an understanding and appreciation I don't possess of Anderson's religious convictions and you think it is odd that I should reference it and feel that my readers should be aware of it!
...

'Bizarre', really??? Fine, you look upon Martin as 'a knowledgeable and informed source' and are accepting his subjective conclusion on one aspect of the man (his religion, which, by the way, I do have more than a passing knowledge of) as the be all and end all on his honesty and accuracy. Sorry, I don't agree with that (and I am not alone).

[PaulB]

It seems odd to me that you say that it is wrong to presume that you agree with Martin, yet you often quote him in this context. And you admit that your readers should take it into consideration or be aware of it.

Bizarre. A knowledgeable and informed source makes an assessment based on an understanding and appreciation I don't possess of Anderson's religious convictions and you think it is odd that I should reference it and feel that my readers should be aware of it!

In the preceding paragraph you state, 'there is no cohesive and persuasive argument against the truth of Anderson's story', and, rather to the detriment of those who don't agree with you, 'The arguments are often poorly thought through, but they boil down to Anderson's veracity,' you then identify the problem you have with strict adherence to Anderson's word, 'and analysis of the Kosminski story is as much an analysis of Anderson as it is an examination of the facts about the suspect.' Well of course it is, for Anderson tells us, positively, that he was identified as Jack the Ripper.

You are now shifting away from any discussion going on here to my article which was an objective assessment of Anderson. People won't know what you are talking about.

In further trying to emphasise the truth of Anderson's words you state, 'Anderson also lacked a reason for lying. In his autobiography he wrote that "kudos is not gained by preventing crimes, but by detecting them and successfully prosecuting the offenders", and, since the Ripper wasn't prosecuted, there was no kudos.'

But aren't you misleading your readers a bit here? Apart from the fact that knowing who the Ripper was and that he was 'safely caged' is much better than having no clue as to his identity, your quote is taken out of context. For you have omitted the first five words of Anderson's quote which, in full, reads, 'For in Secret Service work, kudos is not to be gained by preventing crimes, but by detecting them, and successfully prosecuting the offenders!' (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, page 99).

This, then, puts the quote in a different context altogether. And the quote is given in the context of the use of agents provocateur to secure convictions in the case of outrages committed (specifically) by the Irish terrorists.

No, I'm not misleading anyone. It is not unreasonable to assume that if he believed kudos in secret service work was to be gained from detecting crimes and prosecuting the offenders that he felt similarly about the detection of ordinary crimes, particularly ones of the magnitude of Jack the Ripper.

And I was not "trying to emphasise the truth of Anderson's words", I was simply observing that Anderson lacked a reason for lying.

[Stewart P Evans]

John Mallon

Could someone clarify this point for me?
With many-many apologies for the newbie question.

As an Inspector with the 'G-men' of the Dublin Metropolitan Police John Mallon was an outstanding and much-respected police officer. He was responsible for securing the arrest and conviction of the Phoenix Park murderers.

Mallon's biographer Frederick Moir Bussy, in his book Irish Conspiracies, 1910, wrote of the Fenian rising and trials of 1867. This was a subject also covered by Anderson in his Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement, 1906. Both mentioned the informer Godfrey Massey (alias Condron) who was in prison at the time. Anderson sought credit for securing this witness as 'Queen's evidence' in the pending trials. Anderson claimed that 'armed with plenary powers' he went to the gaol and had himself 'smuggled into Massey's cell' where in 'an ordeal at best, and not without risk, for Massey was a powerful man, of a passionate temper, and in no amiable frame of mind just then' Anderson spent six hours in the cell obtaining the 'whole story of the "Insurrection plot".'

Bussy describes Anderson's story as 'a very picturesque account of his participation in the affair' and stated, 'I have 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.'

The Andersonites always counter anything said against Anderson as politically motivated prejudice, even in the face of mounting criticism of Anderson from many contemporary sources. And remember, this book was published in 1910 in London and not a peep of protest was heard from Anderson who must have known about it and had a copy.

[Stewart P Evans]

Would it not be easier to stick to the question in hand? Rather than changing subject when you fail to have an answer?
Pirate

That is not even worth commenting on.

[Stewart P Evans]

Odd

You are completely wrong to presume from what I wrote that I agree with Martin and, rather like the conspiracy theorist who always suspects nefarious intent in whatever someone does, you assume I am trying to impress my readers with Martin's conclusion when I am simply citing the conclusion of an informed and knowledgeable commentator on an aspect of Anderson's character that the readers should take into consideration or at least be aware of.
And, of course, it is Martin's conclusion, not mine, so I correctly attribute it to Martin. As for why I cite Martin rather than my own conclusion, I don't have the depth of knowledge necessary to assess whether Martin's conclusion is correct or not...

It seems odd to me that you say that it is wrong to presume that you agree with Martin, yet you often quote him in this context. And you admit that your readers should take it into consideration or be aware of it.

In the preceding paragraph you state, 'there is no cohesive and persuasive argument against the truth of Anderson's story', and, rather to the detriment of those who don't agree with you, 'The arguments are often poorly thought through, but they boil down to Anderson's veracity,' you then identify the problem you have with strict adherence to Anderson's word, 'and analysis of the Kosminski story is as much an analysis of Anderson as it is an examination of the facts about the suspect.' Well of course it is, for Anderson tells us, positively, that he was identified as Jack the Ripper.

In further trying to emphasise the truth of Anderson's words you state, 'Anderson also lacked a reason for lying. In his autobiography he wrote that "kudos is not gained by preventing crimes, but by detecting them and successfully prosecuting the offenders", and, since the Ripper wasn't prosecuted, there was no kudos.'

But aren't you misleading your readers a bit here? Apart from the fact that knowing who the Ripper was and that he was 'safely caged' is much better than having no clue as to his identity, your quote is taken out of context. For you have omitted the first five words of Anderson's quote which, in full, reads, 'For in Secret Service work, kudos is not to be gained by preventing crimes, but by detecting them, and successfully prosecuting the offenders!' (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, page 99).

This, then, puts the quote in a different context altogether. And the quote is given in the context of the use of agents provocateur to secure convictions in the case of outrages committed (specifically) by the Irish terrorists.

[PaulB]

Could someone clarify this point for me?
With many-many apologies for the newbie question.

John Mallon (1839-1915), an Irish detective who rose to be assistant commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who successfully subverted revolutionary activity in Dublin and is mainly remembered today for catching the Phoenix Park murderers.