Kosminski Identification Questions

[Jeff Leahy]

About as many as believe 'that one' about Kosminski.

Actually I always wondered if Chapman might not have been a better fit for the Torso killings?

I came across a case of several serial killers working independently within a short distance in Mexico City 1970's. I'll see if I can dig it out.

Pirate

[Chris]

It 'would be' The WHITECHAPEL MURDERS of 1888 A Subjective Look into The Mystery and Manipulation of a Victorian Tragedy Confessions of a Ripperologist By John Malcolm, privately published USA, 124 pp., illustrated, 2005.

John is a meticulous researcher and has a genuine love for his subject. Although we may not agree on all points I greatly respect him and admire his excellent, thought-provoking writing. I am not sure of the availability of this rare little book.

The text of John's book is actually available on Casebook:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.malcolm.html

[Stewart P Evans]

About as many...

True. But then we've also established Sugdens preference for Poisoner George Chapman as a suspect.
And who really believes that one?
Pirate

About as many as believe 'that one' about Kosminski.

[Stewart P Evans]

John Malcolm

...
...
And the book in question would be?
...

It 'would be' The WHITECHAPEL MURDERS of 1888 A Subjective Look into The Mystery and Manipulation of a Victorian Tragedy Confessions of a Ripperologist By John Malcolm, privately published USA, 124 pp., illustrated, 2005.

John is a meticulous researcher and has a genuine love for his subject. Although we may not agree on all points I greatly respect him and admire his excellent, thought-provoking writing. I am not sure of the availability of this rare little book.

[Stewart P Evans]

A reflection...

It is, perhaps, a reflection on Anderson's own self-importance and belief of always being right that he filtered out these things that he apparently believed without giving any thought to, or even comprehending, the fact that they would result in great controversy and cause questions to be raised in the House. It culminated with the question of his pension being forfeited and had he realised that would happen I am sure he would have been rather more careful about what he wrote.

[Stewart P Evans]

But...

Unless it was a matter of national security it is highly unlikely that Anderson would have been able to wriggle away from a direct question by claiming an inability to reveal his source. But the point is that if challenged to support his claim with factual evidence he would have been unable to do so and his reputation would have suffered as a result.

But his reputation did suffer. And if he did refuse to divulge a source whatever could they do about it? It wasn't a crime.

[PaulB]

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.

Unless it was a matter of national security it is highly unlikely that Anderson would have been able to wriggle away from a direct question by claiming an inability to reveal his source. But the point is that if challenged to support his claim with factual evidence he would have been unable to do so and his reputation would have suffered as a result.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fantasy

I know that. The point is that information from a variety of sources would have been available to Anderson which would not necessarily have been available to an investigating officer down the ranks.

So what is the implication here? That Anderson (and Swanson presumably) were privy to some 'secret' information that Jack the Ripper had been positively identified as 'a poor Polish Jew' but this fact, for some occult reason, had to be kept secret from all the other officers investigating the murders? Now that truly is fantasy.

[Stewart P Evans]

Parnell

...
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.
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.

'And as regards the Parnell "facsimile letter" of May 15, 1882, I have received definite confirmation of my statement that it is in the handwriting of Arthur O'Keefe [sic]. I have obtained further proof, moreover, that at that period O'Keefe was employed by Mr. Parnell as an amanuensis. R.A.' Robert Anderson, January 30, 1907.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pigott

...
...
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...

'The letters were forgeries, the creation of a onetime editor, journalist and friend of Parnell named Richard Pigott, and there is no doubt the forger's identity was known to Parnell and was probably known to Labouchere by 11 October 1888.' (Jack the Ripper The Facts, page 207, by Paul Begg).

'However, the manager of The Times was exposed under a formidable cross-examination by Herbert Asquith...to have done nothing to authenticate the letters, which had in fact been written by a man named Richard Pigott.' (Jack the Ripper The Facts, page 363, by Paul Begg).

[PaulB]

In his position Anderson would not have handled the information coming in on the Whitechapel murders from other divisions, the provinces, abroad, etc. It would have fed into Swanson who was dealing with all messages and actions regarding the case. As you know, Anderson was away until after the murders of Stride and Eddowes, and not dealing with anything, and he was far more concerned with the Special Commission than the murders.

I know that. The point is that information from a variety of sources would have been available to Anderson which would not necessarily have been available to an investigating officer down the ranks.

[Stewart P Evans]

Importance

Paul Begg and Martin Fido were amongst the first to realise the importance of Anderson's involvement in the 'Parnellism and Crime' furore of 1887/88 and the resultant Parnell Commission. This, of course, was largely because it gives an insight to Anderson's character and involved his 1910 claims regarding the identification of the Ripper.

Anderson was up to his ears in the attack on, and vilification of, Parnell. Apropos of his 1887 involvement with The Times articles, Anderson approached one Hugh Oakley Arnold-Forster (an opponent of Home Rule) regarding the controversy that was developing. Anderson had much material on the American Fenian activities supplied by his agent 'Henri Le Caron'. Arnold-Forster said that he was prepared to open negotiations with George Earle Buckle, editor of The Times. Arnold-Forster then acted as an intermediary with Buckle and wrote to Anderson on 1 May, 'I have seen Buckle and in accordance with your wishes I have at his behest and according to your instructions communicated your name to him.' Thus The Times Anderson obtained the go ahead for his controversial articles on 'Parnellism and Crime Behind the Scenes in America.'

It is here that we find an example of Anderson's deceit and economy with the truth. For in 1910, when the controversy arose over his Times articles of 1887, Anderson gave his account of things stating 'Mr Arnold-Forster pressed the matter on me and I went to Mr Monro at Scotland Yard...whose judgement was that the articles would play an important part in what may be termed the anti-Fenian conspiracy'. Monro, of course, denied the story stating, 'The alleged statement of Anderson to an interviewer that it was arranged between him and me that he should write the letters and that they should be offered to The Times as the best medium for their publication is absolutely incorrect.'

So here the Arnold-Forster material and Monro's denial show Anderson giving a totally opposite version of events.

[Stewart P Evans]

Honesty

I think that it is rather unfortunate that we have to digress into lengthy examinations of Anderson's track record for honesty and accuracy in his written works. This takes us into areas such as Parnell and Fenianism which are very complex and off-topic as far as the Whitechapel murders are concerned.

But many years ago great store was set in Anderson's veracity in light of the fact that he was the only senior Metropolitan Police official to ever claim that the identity of the Ripper was known to the police and, therefore, there was no mystery. That, surely, flies in the face of the facts as we know them today. It is necessary to read Martin Fido's very good book The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, and especially his chapter on Anderson 'The Man Who Knew Too Much'. This, really, was the work that firmly put Anderson into the reckoning whereas prior to that, as Paul correctly states, he had been a bit sidelined and unfairly misrepresented. But, in my opinion, things then went too far the other way and he was almost sanctified. In 1988 Paul's excellent Jack the Ripper the Uncensored Facts appeared and gave huge prominence to Anderson and his claims. It also published, for the first time, 'the Swanson Marginalia' in full.

In 1991 the essential Jack the Ripper A to Z, by Begg, Fido and Skinner, appeared. This book was ostensibly a reference work and became very influential. There was, again, great emphasis on Anderson and his writings. The A to Z told us (inter alia) that '...the combined testimony of Anderson and Swanson weighs heavily towards the identity of the Ripper having been known...' Although qualified these are strong words and were certainly responsible for setting some on the track of the Polish Jew suspect and in believing there was a answer to the case.

The A to Z further told its readers that 'Dr Robert Anderson does not name the man who, he claims as 'a definitely ascertained fact', was positively identified as Jack the Ripper. Yet as he was the man in charge of the case and the only policeman to say decisively that it had been solved, it seems vital to identify his suspect. He says the man was a poor Polish Jew...'

By 1996 the A-Z was telling us that 'Anderson may have been quite wrong. But persistent attempts to disprove his statements by denigrating his character are almost on a par with the outdated game of abusing and dismissing the police as a whole (and Warren in particular) in order to allow irresponsible theorising from some other source.' This almost sounds like an admonishment from a schoolteacher and the words are, I suspect, Martin Fido's. There can be, therefore, no wonder that long debates have resulted about Anderson's honesty and reliability. It is also interesting to note that many of the points that militate against Anderson and his claims were missing from the earlier works.

[Errata]

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

Pirate

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

I did not believe I would be the first. And humans do err. However my point was slightly different.

I am not supposed to eat pork. It says that clear as day. However, my duty as a guest or as a host is one of the most paramount given to us outside of the 10 commandments. Lot offered up his two virgin daughters to an angry mob so that his guests would not molested, and he COULD NOT violate his duties as a host. They were more important than his duties as a father, or his duties as a Jew. And his guests were required to allow Lot to make this offer.

So if I am a guest, and I am served pork, what am I supposed to do? Well, because Rabbi's are actually extra thorough people, we know the answer to that. But it is a religious conundrum.

Anderson's religion forbade him to lie for personal gain. Most do. But what if it's not for personal gain? What if it is to glorify the brave men who worked on this case? What if it is to ease public fears that the killer is no more, but he could not reveal the true killer? What if it was a last ditch investigative tool to see if it would draw out the real killer who would be irritated at being misidentified? What if it was to sell more of books to fund his charitable contributions? What if it was to make his wife happy?

Every religion comes up against the question "when is it okay to lie?" and every person comes up against the questions "am I really doing this for the reasons I think I am doing this?" And of course for Anderson, we don't know. If he is a godly man, and if he thinks lying about Kosminski being the killer would bring him great personal glory, then of course he wouldn't lie. But if he had what he perceived to be a good reason? Even if personal gain was going to be a byproduct? The man HAD to be a champion rationalizer. We all do it. He did it. Did he do it this time?

My understanding of his religious beliefs (which fills a thimble) is that bragging was also a sin. Something like your accomplishments are god's accomplishments s you can't take credit for it. Wouldn't publishing a memoir (at all really) with a little statement that essentially says "Yes we know who he was and we got him, but you can't know who he was, but he's dead so don't worry" kinda running up against the line of bragging? If not perhaps taking note of it as you sail past?

Kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. It's why I try to never take into account a man's religion on these issues. I find that often the very devout got that way by being somewhat lax and then having the crap scared out of them.

[mariab]

Windy is actually good, as it will make the volcano smoke cloud move around quickly down Western Europe, so as to avoid the air traffic problems of last year's.
NO idea how we drifted into this from Kozminsky! Many apologies, and I'll stop highjacking this thread.