Kosminski Identification Questions

[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.

[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]

This quote by Sudgen is still relevant today.
.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Trusting the volcano not getting to you

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.