Kosminski Identification Questions

[belinda]

I'm not criticising. I was only stating that I have no opinion about Anderson as I did not want people to think that I am unobjective about him.I did not mean to offend you.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Belinda.

"I think they believed what they wrote I don't think it was some kind of bluff to fool the public into thinking they hadn't stuffed up such a notorious case."

Perhaps so, but regretfully, we may never know. Anderson bragged about bending the truth. Either he was:

1. Telling the truth.

or

2. Lying

If the first, then he is a truth bender and hence a dissembler. But if the second . . . . Either way, not the kind of chap that I would trust.

Cheers.
LC

You mean a part from the fact that Anderson also believed that Lying for personal cudos was a mortal sin?

Are you saying Anderson was prepared to condem his mortal soul over a minor hic cup in his career? ie JtR

This is a man who wrote numerous books on theology who is still read today and who believed in a second coming of christ.....in his own life time...

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

There is no decent theory, and Sugden acknowledges that fact. He doesn't 'plumb [sic] for Chapman', he agrees with Jonathan Goodman that, 'Of those [suspects] named, I think the least unlikely is George Chapman.'

Oh come on Stewart I could equally say that I agree with Rob House, 'that of those suspects named, i think the least unlikely is Aaron Kosminski'

Its surely samantics

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Would you like to reconsider that answer? Please name the two experts and state the words they have used in confirming it is in Swanson's handwriting. No handwriting can, of course, confirm such a thing. He can only offer his expert opinion. And experts often disagree with each other.

How about two other home office experts have given opinion that the marginalia is not in a handwriting other than Swansons

Oh...'In all probability'

Pirate

PS Davies and the other one name skips me at present...I believe PaulB has the full reports of both.

[PaulB]

I don't think I know any so-called “convinced Andersonites” who believe Anderson’s words on the Ripper make him the best source for a possible solution to the case. As far as I am aware, Anderson has been regarded as the ‘best source’ because he was the head of the C.I.D. in 1888 and therefore presumably in the best position to know the evidence against all the most serious suspects. This gives a degree of primacy to his writings on the case.

As for whether or not Anderson would have lied in his published secular writings, as far as I know this is the opinion of one Ripperologist and one Ripperologist only. The Ripperologist in question is Martin Fido and he based his conclusion on his understanding of Anderson’s religious beliefs, which in his opinion would have made it unlikely that Anderson would have lied to a general readership in his secular writings. I don’t think anybody has challenged Martin’s conclusion on the foundation upon which it was based – that is to say, nobody has come along and demonstrated why Anderson’s religious convictions would have permitted him to lie to a general readership etc, etc. It seems wrong to me to dismiss or diminish a conclusion without challenging the foundation on which it is based.

Nobody, I think, has simply asked or demanded that anything Swanson has written be accepted without question. Arguments and evidence for his veracity have been presented.

[Phil H]

As for whether or not Anderson would have lied in his published secular writings, as far as I know this is the opinion of one Ripperologist and one Ripperologist only.

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.

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

As for whether or not Anderson would have lied in his published secular writings, as far as I know this is the opinion of one Ripperologist and one Ripperologist only.

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.

Phil

I think Martin Fido was clear on this Phil.

Anderson would not have lied for personal 'Cudos' this would have been part of his religious belief much like stating Jewish people don't eat pork pies.

Yours Pirate

[Phil H]

think Martin Fido was clear on this Phil....Anderson would not have lied for personal 'Cudos' this would have been part of his religious belief...

But that is only Mr Fido's opinion (albeit one I largely respect). In this case I don't think I am questioning that, as much as where the division came between professional and personal.

Nor, please note, did I EVER suggest that Anderson would have lied for personal "cudos". If he lied then I believe he would have done so for professional or national security reasons.

So there may be no "blue sky" between me and Mr Fido!

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

Oh come on Stewart I could equally say that I agree with Rob House, 'that of those suspects named, i think the least unlikely is Aaron Kosminski'
Its surely samantics
Pirate

No, it is not semantics, Sugden espouses no theory, he merely states that Chapman is the best of a poor bunch. Whereas you are utterly convinced that you are right.

[Stewart P Evans]

Merely

I'm not criticising. I was only stating that I have no opinion about Anderson as I did not want people to think that I am unobjective about him.I did not mean to offend you.

I didn't think you were criticising, I was merely stating my position.

[Stewart P Evans]

Ah...

How about two other home office experts have given opinion that the marginalia is not in a handwriting other than Swansons
Oh...'In all probability'
Pirate
PS Davies and the other one name skips me at present...I believe PaulB has the full reports of both.

Ah, that's right, they didn't confirm anything, they quite correctly stated their opinion. Funny little word 'probability', it lacks the finality of 'confirms'.

[lynn cates]

flow chart

Hello Phil. Regarding your post #83, there is little to add. I appreciate your enumeration of cases along with possible strengths of each. It reads almost like a flow chart.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

perception

Hello Phil.

"If he lied then I believe he would have done so for professional or national security reasons."

Or for what he perceived as such.

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

As for whether or not Anderson would have lied in his published secular writings, as far as I know this is the opinion of one Ripperologist and one Ripperologist only.

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.

Phil

This is where taking Martin's conclusion out of its context and not addressing the foundation upon which it is based leads to faulty assertions being made. Martin was well-aware of Anderson's "secret service" activities and his own admission that he employed tricks and lies - as when he tried to solicit a confession from a suspect that photographs of a murdered person's eyes held an image of the last things they saw - and he may well have sanctioned far worse in his efforts to combat terrorism. However, Martin made clear that Anderson would have lied to bring murderers and terrorists to justice because in his view such people had abandoned God and the right to expect and be given truth and honesty. That was, said Martin, totally different to telling a lie in an ordinary book for a general readership for the purpose of personal or departmental kudos. What Martin said is far, far different from saying that Anderson would not have lied.

So, yes, you are absolutely spot on when you ask how Anderson would have perceived lying about the Ripper, and I think it's fair to say that Martin Fido addressed and answered that point. I have absolutely no idea whether he was right or not.

[Phil H]

"If he lied then I believe he would have done so for professional or national security reasons."...Or for what he perceived as such.

Lynn, I entirely agree. But aren't most things perceptual? But, yes, I think Anderson would have had his own views.

Phil