Kosminski Identification Questions

[PaulB]

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

Actually, it was Martin Fido who said that Anderson would not have lied for personal or departmental kudos. I don't think in 1986/7 Martin gave much, if any, thought to Anderson lying for professional or national security reasons, and, despite the current interest in the Special Branch ledgers, I must admit that I can't immediately see any real benefits or purposes a lie in his book could have achieved. That the Ripper wasn't caught or identified was in 1910 almost as much carved on stone as it is today and Anderson's claim to the contrary flew in the face of received opinion as much then as now. It was only his [I]Times[I] revelations that probably saved him 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?

[Stewart P Evans]

Presumably

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.
...

I stated, 'For the convinced Andersonites these words are sufficient to make them the 'best source' for a possible solution to the case as they believe that Anderson would not have lied or deceived in his published secular writings.' You have put a rather simplistic interpretation on that for it means that the words are Anderson's and, obviously given his position and accepted veracity, they are the best source.

To state that as 'head of the CID he was in the best position to know' is a bit of an presumption (to use your own word). 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. Equally Macnaghten as second in command in the CID, and confidential assistant to Anderson, must be presumed to have known as much as Anderson. Indeed he later took over the reigns as Assistant Commissioner Crime (Anderson's post) for many years.

Anderson has been regarded as the 'best source' because that accolade was bestowed upon him many years ago by certain authors and it gained wide acceptance as a fact. Nothing, as we know, is quite that simple. There is evidence to show that, despite his position, Anderson was not quite 'the man of the world', he thought himself to be, and he could be naive, even gullible. 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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Prove the lie

Actually, it was Martin Fido who said that Anderson would not have lied for personal or departmental kudos. I don't think in 1986/7 Martin gave much, if any, thought to Anderson lying for professional or national security reasons, and, despite the current interest in the Special Branch ledgers, I must admit that I can't immediately see any real benefits or purposes a lie in his book could have achieved. That the Ripper wasn't caught or identified was in 1910 almost as much carved on stone as it is today and Anderson's claim to the contrary flew in the face of received opinion as much then as now. It was only his [I]Times[I] revelations that probably saved him 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?

Yes, and I am afraid that I do not agree with Martin.

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 had previous 'form' for making claims that were contrary to accepted history as evidenced in the case of Parnell where he claimed in 1906/07 that Parnell, and not Pigott, was responsible for the incriminating May 15, 1882 letter published in The Times. Anderson claimed to have 'definite confirmation' of this statement 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.

[lynn cates]

finis

Hello Mr. Evans.

"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."

Yes, and that says it all.

Cheers.
LC

[Stewart P Evans]

'Bee in his bonnet'

Anderson was certainly a man who could get a 'bee in his bonnet'.

That he was very much affected, and concerned, by criticism levelled against him, and by events that did not go his way and show him in a favourable light, is evidenced by the amount of ink he expended on both Parnell and the unsolved Whitechapel murders (or solved Whitechapel murders if you are speaking from Anderson's viewpoint). His repeated references to the offender being 'safely caged in an asylum' show that he did not agree 'that the Ripper wasn't caught or identified' and had taken that stand for many years. Apart from the amplification of the identification he had been singing that song in public for ten years.

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Well Chapman is a good suspect. Put forward by no less an authority than Abberline..

However how one might word or communicate something for a academic audience in a book and how that might be done of a commercial television network are two entirely different things.

Perhaps 'samantic' was the wrong choice of word. But the requirement to make some kind of conclusion to any commentary is the same.

Yours Pirate

[PaulB]

I stated, 'For the convinced Andersonites these words are sufficient to make them the 'best source' for a possible solution to the case as they believe that Anderson would not have lied or deceived in his published secular writings.' You have put a rather simplistic interpretation on that for it means that the words are Anderson's and, obviously given his position and accepted veracity, they are the best source.

It may be simplistic, but I don't want anyone to receive the unintended impression that Anderson's words alone are thought to make him the 'best source' because he would not have lied in his published secular writings.

To state that as 'head of the CID he was in the best position to know' is a bit of an presumption (to use your own word). 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. Equally Macnaghten as second in command in the CID, and confidential assistant to Anderson, must be presumed to have known as much as Anderson. Indeed he later took over the reigns as Assistant Commissioner Crime (Anderson's post) for many years.

Obviously people only know what they experience or what information they are given, and that applies to active investigators too. They would only know what information was conveyed downwards to them from above and Anderson had access to information from all the divisions, the provinces, foreign forces, security and intelligence, and so on and so on, and in certain cases would have had to sanction or otherwise be told about any unusual actions. What I said is that as head of the C.I.D. Anderson would have known the case against every serious suspect... And so he would.

Anderson has been regarded as the 'best source' because that accolade was bestowed upon him many years ago by certain authors and it gained wide acceptance as a fact. Nothing, as we know, is quite that simple. There is evidence to show that, despite his position, Anderson was not quite 'the man of the world', he thought himself to be, and he could be naive, even gullible. 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.

I don't think Anderson was accepted as the best source simply because "certain authors" bestowed that accolade on him, but because the evidence and arguments made by "certain authors" proved persuasive to others. And let's not forget that Anderson was hitherto not regarded highly at all and that the assessment of one of those "certain authors", Martin Fido, was in direct response to authors like Stephen Knight who dismissed Anderson as a lying fantasist.

[PaulB]

Yes, and I am afraid that I do not agree with Martin.

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.

Anderson was writing over 20 years after the event and just who would be able to prove the lie?

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

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.

Yes, indeed he could, and indeed they did, but fortunately it was all overshadowed by the Times revelations. Anderson did not know that would happen.

Anderson had previous 'form' for making claims that were contrary to accepted history as evidenced in the case of Parnell where he claimed in 1906/07 that Parnell, and not Pigott, was responsible for the incriminating May 15, 1882 letter published in The Times. Anderson claimed to have 'definite confirmation' of this statement which flies in the face of accepted history.

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.

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.

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Anderson

...
Obviously people only know what they experience or what information they are given, and that applies to active investigators too. They would only know what information was conveyed downwards to them from above and Anderson had access to information from all the divisions, the provinces, foreign forces, security and intelligence, and so on and so on, and in certain cases would have had to sanction or otherwise be told about any unusual actions. What I said is that as head of the C.I.D. Anderson would have known the case against every serious suspect... And so he would.
...

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Some

...
...
I don't think Anderson was accepted as the best source simply because "certain authors" bestowed that accolade on him, but because the evidence and arguments made by "certain authors" proved persuasive to others. And let's not forget that Anderson was hitherto not regarded highly at all and that the assessment of one of those "certain authors", Martin Fido, was in direct response to authors like Stephen Knight who dismissed Anderson as a lying fantasist.

There are only some who are of the opinion that Anderson is the 'best source'.

When McCormick et al were writing it was very different from now. I am sure that more informed readers of today would never accept opinions of senior police officers given in such books. And not all of them did in the 1950s and 60s. It was a time when the books were more concerned with suspects and theories rather than facts and references. Of course, the official files didn't really gain currency until after the publication of Knight's book, thus putting readers in a better position to properly assess the case.

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.

[Errata]

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

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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