Kosminski Identification Questions

[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]

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).

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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

[Stewart P Evans]

Are you...

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

Are you an R. Michael Gordon fan? Without wishing to start another debate I will merely add that I don't see a common hand in all the 'Torso killings'.

[PaulB]

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.

I'm getting lost. Anderson's reputation suffered as a consequence of the furore caused by the belief that he had admitted to authoring the The Times articles, and in that Parliamentary fencing match he was used and abused by both sides who were involved in shooting at higher game. Not much interest was taken in his Ripper revelations then or since, although Anderson came perilously close to having to explain himself on 20 April 1910 when the Irish Nationalist M.P. Jeremiah (‘Jerry’) MacVeagh asked the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, if he’d seen Anderson’s Ripper revelations and if Anderson had received the sanction of the Home Office or Scotland Yard. Churchill replied that Anderson had neither asked for nor received any sanction, but that the matter seemed of minor importance in comparison to other issues raised by the memoirs. Had Anderson been pushed on this matter then it is likely that he would have been asked to provide confirmation that the events described did happen. This would not have required him to name names or reveal sources, just produce the necessary documentary evidence which would no doubt have once existed if the story he told was true.

[PaulB]

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.

I'm sure Anderson would have been more careful if he'd thought that he would cause such a furore, but it must be remembered that (a) he had originally indicated which Times articles he had written, and (b) he was under the impression (perhaps correctly) that his authorship of the articles was well-known.

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

.

Well Yes again. Its complicated. And I must admit I'm no expert on the Talmud.

The point Martin makes is that we can subscribe religious practices and beliefs to religeous doctrine and draw conclusions about those who practice it.

Scholars have spent life times at the vatican doing just such.

Our understanding of ancient civilizations depends on this heavily.

Martin did three things: He took his knowledge of Anderson's Religeous beliefs and practices as they were at the time. (and bear in mind this was a period of much change and development with Darwinism hot on everyones tails) He took his knowledge of this period in History and his knowledge of Anderson the man.

From this he made an assessment. And without a deep knowledge of 19th Century Presperterian Christianity its very difficult to challenge that assessment. (In some ways its a bit of a willow the wisp as it developed through travelling priests and scribes heavily through out the period. And Anderson himself was a part of that thinking).

PaulB clearly states he doesnt feel qualified or knowledgable enough on the subject to do so. He doesn't however state Martin is correct. Just that Martin's not been challenged on the same basis he made his assessment

And I'm blowed if I fully understand it, even having done a little research in the area. Anderson's conversion happened in his late teens and followed meeting a travelling preacher but I've forgotten his name.

I believe Andersons son wrote a book that might reveal some of his religeous history. Theres quite a lot out there on religious sites: http://rediscoveringthebible.com/Anderson.html

Yours Pirate