Kosminski Identification Questions

[PaulB]

And this proves what I have been saying. How pompous can you get? I find that my rejection of Martin's conclusion does carry some weight and others do agree with me.

How does it prove what you have been saying? How is it pompous? And I'm sure others do agree with. Hell, I'd agree with you. But we'd be talking from a position of ignorance because we don't really understand the form and shape of Anderson's religious convictions or how they would have influenced his actions.
We have to know those things before we can challenge Martin's conclusion, otherwise we're just employing things like "common sense", "gut reaction", and so on.

[PaulB]

You use Martin's observations on Anderson on page 356 of Jack the Ripper The Facts where 20 out of 36 lines of text on the page are devoted to this. That is quoting at length as far as I am concerned.

You introduce what he says by stating, 'But after reading Anderson's secular and theological writings (which is why I stated 'having read some (all?) of Anderson's theological works'), and with a knowledge of the morals and mores of the time, as well as an understanding of Anderson's complicated religious beliefs and how they would have influenced his thinking and actions, the author Martin Fido completely rejected any idea that Anderson would lie in self-interest...'

Now as you go to the trouble of writing all this, and reproducing 11 lines of verbatim Fido text, I have to presume that you agree with him and are trying to impress your readers with his conclusions. I still find it strange that you don't actually state your own conclusions in this regard but have to quote Fido.

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. I am aware that Scripture permeated Victorian society to an extraordinary degree and that Scripture was profoundly central to the lives of people who believed as Anderson did, and it is also clear from Anderson's theological writings and the Moore-Anderson biography that Anderson's beliefs were central to his life. I therefore know enough to appreciate that Martin is making a point that merits due consideration.

[Errata]

I could be terribly wrong about this, but given that the odd grammar and incorrect details come from the marginalia and NOT Anderson's text, is Anderson even connected at all to Kosminski? Anderson says it was a Polish Jew, amidst some twaddle that makes it hard to figure out if he hates Jews or just poor people (I'm leaning towards poor people). And he said the man was identified by a witness, but nothing else.

So why isn't Swanson (or alternatively) the author of the marginalia the one on the historical Hot Seat? I mean, maybe Kosminski spit on Swanson at some point so he took some perverse pleasure in vilifying him in margin notes?

It's Anderson's book... It's Anderson's assertion that the killer was known and identified, and was a poor Polish Jew. And for all we know that is all true. It's one of the advantages of being vague. But why attribute the sin of identifying Kosminski to Anderson?

[Jeff Leahy]

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

Pirate

[mariab]

Assistant Commissioner Mallon, for instance, did not think that Anderson could not lie.

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

[Stewart P Evans]

Finally

...
No you don’t. But Martin’s conclusion stands diametrically opposed to your own. You dismiss Martin’s thinking. To you Martin’s statements seems absurd because your life experience has demonstrated that some deeply religious people are arrant liars, and I would be inclined to strongly agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact that I recognise that I don’t have Martin’s knowledge and understanding of how Anderson’s beliefs would have influenced him.

Finally, I have to admit, and I have said it before, I do feel that you have much more flexibility than Martin and are more willing to assess and include new information. We have to stand back from what we may think that Anderson's beliefs might dictate, and assess the views of his contemporaries. Assistant Commissioner Mallon, for instance, did not think that Anderson could not lie.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pompous

...
Precisely. Martin bases his interpretation on his knowledge, which is why his conclusion merits attention, and it is a knowledge that I venture you don’t possess - I don’t possess it either – which is why your rejection of Martin’s conclusion carries no weight.
...

And this proves what I have been saying. How pompous can you get? I find that my rejection of Martin's conclusion does carry some weight and others do agree with me.

[Stewart P Evans]

Knowledge

...
As I understand it, this is not true. Martin did not reach his conclusion about Anderson after reading some or all of Anderson’s theological writings, he reached it because he understands the type of religion Anderson practiced, what it was that Anderson believed, and how those beliefs would probably have influenced his thought and actions. Moreover, Martin understood Anderson in the context of the milieu of religious thought in the late Victorian period. This is prima facie a very strong foundation upon which Martin built his argument and it is one you have never challenged, preferring instead to fall back on “common sense” arguments such as “some of the greatest hypocrites to be found can be very religious ones…”
You have also chosen to question Martin’s claim that Anderson’s religion 'was far and away the most important thing to him...' and argued that Anderson had other preoccupations:
That Anderson had other interests does not mean that his religion was not central to his life....Precisely. Martin bases his interpretation on his knowledge, which is why his conclusion merits attention, and it is a knowledge that I venture you don’t possess - I don’t possess it either – which is why your rejection of Martin’s conclusion carries no weight.
...

What you seem to fail to appreciate is the fact that we all, you, me, Martin, everyone, draw our own conclusions based on our own knowledge, life experience and other factors. Quite understandably we make different interpretations and draw different conclusions. And so it should be.

However, you seem to think that in this instance Martin is right and anyone with contrary opinions is wrong. What Martin is doing, in effect, is stereotyping Anderson within a religious framework which makes no other allowance for interpreting the man and what he wrote. Martin presumes to know how Anderson's mind worked. This, of course, suits his and your own need to show Anderson as being unable to lie in his book The Lighter Side of My Official Life. It suits the theorising of you both, despite the fact you disagree on the ultimate suspect.

This also presumes, of course, that every single person fitting Anderson's religious profile could also not lie in this manner. To me that is a nonsense. Martin is no more able to categorically state what was the most important thing to Anderson than any other intelligent historian. What we can say as a fact is that Anderson was obsessed with Parnell and the 'Irish problem'. Let it be understood that the idea of Home Rule for Ireland was perceived in those days, by the likes of Anderson, as nothing less than a threat to the integrity of the British Empire.

[Stewart P Evans]

Use

This is getting ridiculous. I do not quote Martin at length, in fact I rarely quote him at all, and I have only cited Martin’s conclusion as an observation by an informed and intelligent commentator. I have tried to learn more and assess Martin's argument.
...

You use Martin's observations on Anderson on page 356 of Jack the Ripper The Facts where 20 out of 36 lines of text on the page are devoted to this. That is quoting at length as far as I am concerned.

You introduce what he says by stating, 'But after reading Anderson's secular and theological writings (which is why I stated 'having read some (all?) of Anderson's theological works'), and with a knowledge of the morals and mores of the time, as well as an understanding of Anderson's complicated religious beliefs and how they would have influenced his thinking and actions, the author Martin Fido completely rejected any idea that Anderson would lie in self-interest...'

Now as you go to the trouble of writing all this, and reproducing 11 lines of verbatim Fido text, I have to presume that you agree with him and are trying to impress your readers with his conclusions. I still find it strange that you don't actually state your own conclusions in this regard but have to quote Fido.

[PaulB]

Yes, and this is where Paul is very clever. For he does not state, as does Martin, that Anderson would not publish 'lies in a book for a wide audience' based on the convoluted religious argument. He just quotes Martin at length on this and if anyone disputes it he bounces it back to Martin and tells you that you have to dispose of Martin's contention before you may disagree with it.

This is getting ridiculous. I do not quote Martin at length, in fact I rarely quote him at all, and I have only cited Martin’s conclusion as an observation by an informed and intelligent commentator. I have tried to learn more and assess Martin's argument. You, on the other hand, frequently reference Martin’s conclusion, often misrepresent what Martin actually said, and attribute his conclusion, as you did a few posts back, to “committed Andersonites” as if it was a pillar in their arguments, which as far as I am aware it isn’t and has never been. Furthermore, Martin’s argument is very far from convoluted, but unfortunately it does demand an understanding of Anderson’s religious beliefs and how they would have influenced his thoughts and actions. You don’t have that knowledge, yet you discount Martin’s conclusion. I am simply saying that in my opinion you are obliged to examine the “evidence” on which Martin’s conclusion is based and challenge Martin’s conclusion on that. There is nothing in the least bit clever about asking, indeed expecting, that you do that.

You repeatedly confirm my position. For example, you wrote:

Basically Martin argues from the viewpoint of having read some (all?) of Anderson's theological works he has gained unique insight into Anderson's religious beliefs and thoughts…

As I understand it, this is not true. Martin did not reach his conclusion about Anderson after reading some or all of Anderson’s theological writings, he reached it because he understands the type of religion Anderson practiced, what it was that Anderson believed, and how those beliefs would probably have influenced his thought and actions. Moreover, Martin understood Anderson in the context of the milieu of religious thought in the late Victorian period. This is prima facie a very strong foundation upon which Martin built his argument and it is one you have never challenged, preferring instead to fall back on “common sense” arguments such as “some of the greatest hypocrites to be found can be very religious ones…”

You have also chosen to question Martin’s claim that Anderson’s religion 'was far and away the most important thing to him...' and argued that Anderson had other preoccupations:

That point is arguable for Anderson was literally obsessed with the 'Irish problem', Home Rule, Fenianism, Parnell, etc. but practised, wrote about and engaged in religious matters to take care of his salvation.

That Anderson had other interests does not mean that his religion was not central to his life. Take a possible soul-mate like the naturalist Philip Gosse; he carried out his scientific work, but the centrality of his religion was renowned - indeed, his son portrayed him as fanatically religious: "my parents founded every action, every attitude, upon the interpretation of the Scriptures...' and 'pleasure was found nowhere but in the Word of God, and to the endless discussion of the Scriptures each hurried when the day's work was over'. Understanding people like Gosse tells us an awful lot about Anderson because they and a great many others were to a greater or lesser extent like spirits.

You are dismissive of Martin’s reasoning:

Martin presumes to know how Anderson's mind worked and what he would and would not do by merely reading his religious output, and basing his interpretation on his own knowledge and experience of religions.

Precisely. Martin bases his interpretation on his knowledge, which is why his conclusion merits attention, and it is a knowledge that I venture you don’t possess - I don’t possess it either – which is why your rejection of Martin’s conclusion carries no weight.

Martin stated that, 'one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster'. That is an incredible claim given Anderson's obvious dubious claims and open bragging.

Well, I don’t know whether the dedicated and scrupulous Christian is a vainglorious liar or boaster or not, nor do I know whether Anderson’s ‘dubious claims and open bragging’ fall within what Martin defines as ‘vainglorious’ lying and boasting. Do you? As I have said elsewhere, Anderson’s views on penology were often regarded as eccentric, variously described as simplistic, crude, and sensationalist, and many contemporaries found him an unsympathetic character while his beliefs and mode of expression antagonised many. Stefan Petrow described Anderson’s thinking on the subject as ‘a hotchpotch of old and new theories…embroidered with religious quotations and written in a highly inflammatory way.’ (Petrow, Stephan. Policing Morals: The Metropolitan Police and the Home Office, 1870 1914. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.) But a vainglorious liar…?

To reach my own opinion and conclusions on Anderson I really don't have to dismiss Martin first.

No you don’t. But Martin’s conclusion stands diametrically opposed to your own. You dismiss Martin’s thinking. To you Martin’s statements seems absurd because your life experience has demonstrated that some deeply religious people are arrant liars, and I would be inclined to strongly agree with you if it wasn’t for the fact that I recognise that I don’t have Martin’s knowledge and understanding of how Anderson’s beliefs would have influenced him.

[Stewart P Evans]

Right

It doesn't make it clear at all, it merely makes clear that O'Keefe was in a position to have obtained a paper bearing Parnell's signature and that the body of the letter was written by O'Keefe, not Pigott.
...

Right, I agree, Anderson was totally wrong.

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

The point of this exchange is not to paint Parnell as a saint (unlike Anderson) but to show that the letter was proved to be a Pigott forgery and not connected with Parnell as Anderson tried to imply.

[Stewart P Evans]

Response

Yes. And....?

I'll let that response speak for itself.

[Stewart P Evans]

Proof

It doesn't make it clear at all, it merely makes clear that O'Keefe was in a position to have obtained a paper bearing Parnell's signature and that the body of the letter was written by O'Keefe, not Pigott. So Pigott in Anderson's view had no part in writing the letter. Likewise, Parnell was shown to have told lies, the court is still out regarding the extent of his complicity in Fenian activities, and it is generally thought that such was Parnell's almost insurmountably difficult position that he must have given his support to potential allies even though he did not mean it.

Come on, it's pretty clear what Anderson is implying. I'm sure that many people lied, and that includes Anderson.

But Lewis (for Parnell) had proof that the letter was a forgery by Pigott despite Anderson still believing that the letter was not a forgery by Pigott. We are not concerned, here, as to what extent Parnell's support for the Fenians went, what we are concerned with is the fact that Anderson could not accept that the letter was in any shape or form a Pigott forgery and persisted in trying to foist it back to Parnell in any way that he could.

As a forgery the letter was completely useless for Anderson's purposes.

[PaulB]

On publication of the facsimile letter in The Times, Parnell stated in the House of Commons that it was 'a villainous and bare faced forgery'.

When O'Donnell brought his libel action against The Times in July 1888 the 'facsimile letter' was read out in court, as well as several other incriminating letters allegedly written by Parnell and Egan (treasurer of the Land League). It was then that Parnell finally requested the appointment of a select committee (but actually got a commission) to inquire into the charges made against him. The commission received the royal assent on 13 August 1888.

The Commission declared all the Pigott letters to be forgeries and absolutely acquitted Parnell of charges based on them.

Pigott had made the first of three confessions before Parnell and Henry Labouchere (at Labouchere's house) on 25 October 1888. The solicitor for The Times, Joseph Soames, was informed of the interview and tackled Pigott who claimed that Labouchere had offered him £1,000 if he would swear he had forged the letters. But on 11 November Pigott wrote to Soames, 'You may take it...as certain that any proceedings that will rely for success on any testimony of any character whatever from me will fail.'

Pigott also demanded money to enable him to remove himself out of jurisdiction but Soames subpoenaed him as a witness for The Times insisting that he must support in the witness-box statements that he had already made under oath as to the authenticity of the letters. Pigott, as we know, collapsed under cross-examination on 22 February 1889. The Times did not know until Pigott's actual appearance as a witness that the Parnell team had convincing proof that Pigott was the forger.

Anderson had no reason to be proud of his collusion with The Times and Harcourt rebuked him for having abused his official position and said he had behaved, 'as a tout for The Times.' Anderson's response was to claim that he had 'acted in the public interest.'

Yes. And....?