Kosminski Identification Questions

[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'.

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Anti-Anderson'

I'm not pro or anti Anderson. I have no strong feelings about him either way.
The reliability questions on this are very similar to the four different versions written by Yakov Yurovsky regarding the murder of the Russian Imperial Family.
I only hope that what I read about Inspector Abberline giving money to women he saw when he was out at night to get them off the streets is true. There has to be a good guy somewhere in this.

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'. Howvever, 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.

[belinda]

I'm not pro or anti Anderson. I have no strong feelings about him either way.

The reliability questions on this are very similar to the four different versions written by Yakov Yurovsky regarding the murder of the Russian Imperial Family.

I only hope that what I read about Inspector Abberline giving money to women he saw when he was out at night to get them off the streets is true. There has to be a good guy somewhere in this.

[Stewart P Evans]

True of anyone...

Because Anderson lied about some things doesn't mean he lied about everything.
If he was going to lie I think he could have made up a better story.

This, of course, is true of anyone.

However, his identification story really doesn't amount to much, there is little detail. What he actually stated was, 'I will only add that when the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum, the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him, but when he learned that the suspect was a fellow-Jew he declined to swear to him.' (Blackwood's, March 1910).

Later the same year when he published the book version of The Lighter Side of My Official Life he changed the wording to, 'I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him.; but he refused to give evidence against him.'

All the problems inherent in these words have been discussed time and time again and really do not need reiterating again here. It is of interest, however, to note that in the Blackwood's version Anderson has the identification taking place after the suspect was 'caged in an asylum'.

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. Several problems are introduced with Swanson's later annotations and again we are asked to believe everything, despite any contradictions, and we are told that both men had their full faculties at the time of writing (a fact that simply cannot be ascertained).

Standing back and looking at it objectively what we have are words written at least 22 years after the event, in a popular magazine/semi-autobiographical work, embellished upon with scribbled marginal and endpaper notes of unknown date(s) but post publication of the book in 1910.

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.'

[belinda]

Because Anderson lied about some things doesn't mean he lied about everything.

If he was going to lie I think he could have made up a better story.