Kosminski Identification Questions

[Jeff Leahy]

Its been very windy in the UK today. Had to battern down the boat...but thanks for info...

But we are drifting off subject...sorry everyone.... back to Kosminski ID.

Yours Pirate

[mariab]

Yes, I thought the name sounds more Finnish than Icelandic. I've seen this artwork before, not sure where though.
The darn volcano is the reason of my leaving Iceland a week earlier than planned, just 3 days after my conference concluded and before I even started doing any ice climbing and snowboarding on Snaeffels (the dormant crater of Jules Verne fame). But it's best to get out while still possible, before another erruption occurs, so as not to get stuck here for good, I have tons of work awaiting for me in Europe.
The black cloud of vulcano smoke was smothering all Southeast Iceland, including Reykjavik and the sea for about a day, and yesterday evening the sky over Reykjavik totally looked like the spaceships in Indenpendance Day, but by this morning it got chased away by the southeastern gale force winds, and now it's approaching Ireland and Scotland, expected to arrive there at about dawn tomorrow. But mainland England should be spared!
With many apologies for briefly highjacking the thread.

[Jeff Leahy]

No Jake is based in Finland and does 3D artwork.

Trusting the volcano not getting to you

Pirate

[mariab]

Agreed. I hope we can add John Bennett to that list.

ABSOLUTELY. And I'm sure I've forgotten to mention other super worthy researchers/writers as well.

I feel it a return in the last three or four years. When I first started this stuff people were still taking Maybrick seriously.

No way!! Was that still in the 1990s?

But I hope your not seriously suggesting that the day to day hagling of a message board is ever going to replace publications or books. They are simply different mediums, as are TV programs, that should be considered and enjoyed in their own right.

Absolutely agree, again. And How's cool caption competition is definitely not what I was addressing.

OK I hadn't realized (a lot of them about)

Wow, should I be flattered? There are definitely lots of newbies, slowing down/clugging the boards.

PS.: Is Jakko Luukannen a joke referring to Iceland? :-)

[Jeff Leahy]

Absolutely. And the next generation is represented by Monty, Rob Clack, Chris Phillips, Rob House, Tom Wescott, Debra Arif. It remains to be seen who will be coming up in the next generation of Ripperologists.

Agreed. I hope we can add John Bennett, Colin Roberts and Jakko Luukannen to that list?

I think it's not so much a return (as Ripperology was never really based on factual analysis in the initial decades, before Sugden/Evans/Begg came out), but it's a stable, continuously developping tendency. And it's not different than in any other field of “scholarship“/research, really. My own field of musicology started out as pretty much appallingly biased and amateurish until far into the 1980s!

I feel it a return in the last three or four years. When I first started this stuff people were still taking Maybrick seriously.

I'm afraid that the discussions in the forums seldom match the seriousness of the publications. Plus, many important publications come out without being discussed in the forums, and I won't even go into the frequent unpleasant or simply too speculative “debate“ going on.

Well thats probably down to Howard's caption competion. But I hope your not seriously suggesting that the day to day hagling of a message board is ever going to replace publications or books. They are simply different mediums, as are TV programs, that should be considered and enjoyed in their own right.

I'm a newbie, so I've obviously missed some things. Trying to catch up here...

OK I hadn't realized (a lot of them about)

Pirate

[mariab]

Ripperology has long since moved on. And it might be argued that Begg and Evans are the fathers of that...

Absolutely. And the next generation is represented by Monty, Rob Clack, Chris Phillips, Rob House, Tom Wescott, Debra Arif. It remains to be seen who will be coming up in the next generation of Ripperologists.

Today a return has been made to far more considered and factual analysis and away from suspect driven ripperology

I think it's not so much a return (as Ripperology was never really based on factual analysis in the initial decades, before Sugden/Evans/Begg came out), but it's a stable, continuously developping tendency. And it's not different than in any other field of “scholarship“/research, really. My own field of musicology started out as pretty much appallingly biased and amateurish until far into the 1980s!

Actually in general I'd say both ripper forums reflect this very much..

I'm afraid that the discussions in the forums seldom match the seriousness of the publications. Plus, many important publications come out without being discussed in the forums, and I won't even go into the frequent unpleasant or simply too speculative “debate“ going on.

Where have you been?

I'm a newbie, so I've obviously missed some things. Trying to catch up here...

[Jeff Leahy]

It is terribly dated if one considers the serious researched publications coming out today, like Rob House's book, the Examiner articles, and almost all of the articles in Ripperologist. Still, if one considers the discussions conducted on the boards, Sudgen's criticism is still completely accurate!

Ripperology has long since moved on. And it might be argued that Begg and Evans are the fathers of that...

Today a return has been made to far more considered and factual analysis and away from suspect driven ripperology..hey even the odd TV program has also tried to do so...

Actually in general I'd say both ripper forums reflect this very much..

Where have you been?

Pirate

[mariab]

It may have been relevant at the time. But surely today its very dated?

It is terribly dated if one considers the serious, researched publications coming out today, like Rob House's book, the Examiner articles, and almost all of the articles in Ripperologist. Still, if one considers the discussions conducted on the boards, Sudgen's criticism is still completely accurate!

[Jeff Leahy]

This quote by Sudgen is still relevant today.
.

It may have been relevant at the time. But surely today its very dated?

Pirate

[mariab]

Thank you so much for a fascinating discussion, Mr. Begg and Mr. Evans. I could sit and listen to this (read this) for hours.
Pertaining to this specific discussion, (for whatever's worth) I tend to agree with Mr. Evans, but this doesn't mean that pertaining to another theme I might not be agreeing rather with Mr. Begg in the future (again, for whatever's worth).

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.

And the book in question would be?

I am not 'anti-Anderson' but I am 'pro-objectivity and fact'.
For many years Anderson enjoyed some pretty flattering attention from certain authors which did not present, in my humble opinion, a balanced view of his character and reliability. In redressing that perceived imbalance I made an especial study of Anderson and published various sources which had been ignored, glossed over or not found before. I thus attracted, unfair in my opinion, criticism for being 'anti-Anderson'. However, anyone who cares to look at my previous posts, and writings, on Anderson will see that I usually back up what I say with source material or show that I am stating my opinion when I interpret the meaning of something.

I'm aware of all this.

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.

And I know all this as well, as it's pretty obvious.
As for forming my own opinion, in this case I'm still getting familiarized with the sources, but I already don't trust Anderson's claims. The discrepancies between the serialized version of his memoirs (particulalry from March 1910) and his published book The lighter side of my official life is very eloquent. In my own line of work we too often have to deal with memoirs written decades after events in question, and these narratives have been invariably proven as not just embellished, but in most cases even as completely fictitious. (A good example is Albert Michotte's recollections of Rossini. Almost everything Michotte has ever written pertaining to this is untruthful, either strongly embelllisehd, or completely imagined!)

And, as Sugden notes, 'There are several reasons for the lamentable state of Ripper studies.
One has been the tendency of writers to draw the bulk of their primary source material from newspaper reports and later reminiscences of police officers and others. This practice should not have survived the 1970s, when police and Home Office records on the Ripper case were first opened, but it continues because of the relative accessibility of newspapers and memoirs. Unfortunately, as sources of factual information on the crimes and police investigations, they are simply not reliable.'

This quote by Sudgen is still relevant today.

Surely we know that Anderson was capable of deceit and duplicity, lying and forgery at least in terms if his Irish secret work?
I assume that he had a private mechanism for separating out (in terms of his conscience) honesty and integrity as a Christian and doing what was necessary for his country. A sort of "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's".
The question is, which part of his mind did he bring to bear on his autobiographical works.

VERY astute post.

It was only his [I]Times[I] revelations that probably saved {Anderson} from being questioned more deeply on it and, if unable to support it, shown to be a liar. It would have to have been a damned big professional or national security reason for a lie like that, don't you think

But the Ripper crimes too were related to a hugely important investigation, with the possibility of HUGE national and international embarrassment – or not?

To state that as 'head of the CID he was in the best position to know' is a bit of an presumption (...). He would know all of the information which was fed to him by the investigating team and Swanson. Anderson did not go out gathering information himself.Thus it would be entirely possible that an active investigator may not, for some reason unknown to us, give all his information to the hierarchy. (...) There is also a case to be made for Anderson receiving the identification story from Swanson in the first palce, and then Swanson, enlarged and commented on it in his annotations in Anderson's book.

Very accurately said, and I'm surprised this is not considered or commented upon more often.

Anderson was writing over 20 years after the event and just who would be able to prove the lie? Anderson could simply adopt his stoic mask and stick to his usual position of having reasons for not being able to disclose what he knew to be 'a definitely ascertained fact'. He was virtually called a liar in the House anyway. Others disagreed with his conclusion, such as Reid and Macnaghten, and openly showed that.
Anderson claimed to have 'definite confirmation' of this statement {pertaining to Parnell} which flies in the face of accepted history. As usual Anderson produced no evidence or corroboration for this very controversial claim. After Parnell winning the case against The Times back in 1888/89, in 1906/07 Anderson was still trying to foist the incriminating letter back onto Parnell.

Thank you for stating these facts.

Pigott retracted his confession and claimed that he had received the letter from Patrick Casey and believed it to be genuine. Anderson stated that he had obtained information to the effect that the letter was written by Arthur O’Keefe, Parnell’s amanuensis in Kilmainham, and was written for the use of “extremists among the Land Leaguers…” The assumption is that Anderson had evidence or good argument to back up this claim, and he states that he reviewed the whole case when writing his book and that his information which “on such matters was seldom at fault” confirmed the conclusion he’d reached at the time.

I have to admit that the above sounds convincing, but but not the part quoted below. Anderson's supposedly still genuinely believing in Parnell's “guilt“ in later years is simply not convincing:

As said, Anderson wasn't trying to foist the letter back on Parnell, although he may have continued to believe that Parnell wrote it, and he really didn't have to offer evidence as he wasn’t presenting an argument in any conventional sense, but was simply making a statement of fact as he believed it to be and as one who was closely involved with the events he was describing.

Given that some of the greatest hypocrites to be found can be very religious ones, and that no man can tell what goes on in another's mind, I find it very difficult to see how Martin can be so convinced that Anderson would not deceive in his books when there is evidence that he did (let's not go into all that again).

I also completely agree with this, but this can be considered as a reflection on a “personal level“.

Robert Anderson may have been 'called upon by Parliament to provide evidence of its truth', but it was exceedingly unlikely that he would be. And if he was asked, as I have stated, he would simply have declined and said that he could not divulge the source of his information. Parliament wrote it off, as you well know, as hot air, bragging and the garrulity of advancing years anyway.

Precisely.

With apologies for taking the liberty to comment on this discussion as a newbie, and with best regards from Reykjavik.

[Jeff Leahy]

I eat pork pies. Well, to be clear I have eaten pork pies on a couple of occasions, but I eat pork. Not often, but sometimes. And I am in fact Jewish. Actually Jewish. And you know why I eat pork? Because I am human, and although the pig may be unclean, he contains some tasty tasty meat. And sometimes it's hard to avoid, especially if someone invites you over to dinner. And it's in a lot of Italian food, and I adore Italian food.

I eat pork because quite frankly, the temporal reward is much greater than any harm that may occur to my soul. And G-d will understand. After all, he made pigs.

Ah .. I was wondering when this chessnut was going to arise...your not the first believe it or not....

And of course its true. Many jewish or even muslim people, eat pork, drink , fornicate and generally behave to what I have coined Begg's law.

Human beings are prone to urr.

However that isn't what Fido is saying.

Fido is saying that it is against Jewish tradition and belief to eat pork pies.

And that is true.

Part of Jewish law is not eating unclean meat. Just because you eat pork pies doesnt mean that every Rabi secretly has a stash of friebentous cans hidden in his bottom draw. Indeed I am good freinds with Jewish people who take observing the sabbath and eating cucha food very seriously..

Because One rabi eats a pork pie it would not be true to say most rabi's eat pork pies. Eating Pork pies is against jewish religious beleif. And many people who practice do take it seriously.

Fido is saying that Lying for personal Kudos is against Anderson's religeous beleifs (which are complicated) And as far as I'm aware that is true.

Whether Anderson would brake those beliefs and damn his soul is an accessment made by Fido ie Taking Andersons religeon and balanced against those religous practices he believed in.

I think Begg would ask where can you show Anderson was a bad 'Bretherine Christian' and where he urr'd against his religeous beliefs.

This belief system is complicated and Anderson wrote many books on the subject...he believed this stuff

The second coming of christ in his life time, hell, damnation and a fast approaching judgement day where he would answer to God for all his sins (now if I believed that I'd be very careful what I wrote).

Pirate

PS you'll have to forgive my dyslexic spelling its gome very bad today.

[Jeff Leahy]

However I am not so sure that Anderson is that highly regarded today, except by those who have been persuaded by certain authors. Certainly Sugden, an authority and qualified historian, rejects him as a good source.

True. But then we've also established Sugdens preference for Poisoner George Chapman as a suspect.

And who really believes that one?

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Response

...
...
And your point is? It isn’t a question of making claims contrary to accepted history, but of being able to back up those claims with evidence if called upon to do so and the consequences to one’s reputation if one couldn’t.
And Anderson did not claim that Parnell, not Pigott, was responsible for the letter. “I am far from asserting that the letter was genuine…” he wrote, and went on to say that if it was a forgery then it wasn’t concocted for The Times…
As has already been explained to you, Pigott retracted his confession and claimed that he had received the letter from Patrick Casey and believed it to be genuine. Anderson stated that he had obtained information to the effect that the letter was written by Arthur O’Keefe, Parnell’s amanuensis in Kilmainham, and was written for the use of “extremists among the Land Leaguers…” The assumption is that Anderson had evidence or good argument to back up this claim, and he states that he reviewed the whole case when writing his book and that his information which “on such matters was seldom at fault” confirmed the conclusion he’d reached at the time.
...

I do love that overworked response of yours, 'And your point is?' Just love it.

Anderson had a long history of making claims that he failed to back up with any sort of evidence or corroboration. Much of the time he seems to have been ignored by those in the corridors of power and he must have caused quite a bit of embarrassment. He was often defending 'his reputation' with letters to The Times, especially when the likes of Harcourt criticised him. It's interesting to see how much defending he does of himself in his books.

Anderson emphatically claimed that the letter in question was written by Parnell's secretary and thus Parnell was responsible for it and signed it. I really don't need you to tell me what Pigott stated, but it is still generally accepted that he forged the letter which, I believe, is what you concluded. The main thrust of the book is to vilify Parnell, many years after his death.

[Stewart P Evans]

Unlikely

...
Nobody had to prove the lie. But Anderson could have been called upon by Parliament, for example, to provide evidence of its truth.
...

Robert Anderson may have been 'called upon by Parliament to provide evidence of its truth', but it was exceedingly unlikely that he would be. And if he was asked, as I have stated, he would simply have declined and said that he could not divulge the source of his information. Parliament wrote it off, as you well know, as hot air, bragging and the garrulity of advancing years anyway.

[Stewart P Evans]

Viewpoint

I know you don't. My argument with you is that you have not challenged Martin on the foundation upon which his argument is based.
...

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 and that his religion 'was far and away the most important thing to him...'

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. Martin's 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.

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.

Martin's convoluted reasoning on Anderson admits (he has to) that Anderson might prevaricate on occasion when dealing with 'murderous terrorists and subversives' as they weren't 'brothers'. He still concludes that Anderson would not lie in 'books for a wide audience'.

Given that some of the greatest hypocrites to be found can be very religious ones, and that no man can tell what goes on in another's mind, I find it very difficult to see how Martin can be so convinced that Anderson would not deceive in his books when there is evidence that he did (let's not go into all that again).

To reach my own opinion and conclusions on Anderson I really don't have to dismiss Martin first. You feel free to keep quoting Martin, as you do, to support your own increasingly frail claims about Anderson's wonderful veracity. I find Martin's claim that Anderson was not 'given to lying or boasting' utterly incredible and a reading of hAnderson's books give the lie to that statement.