Kosminski Identification Questions

[Stewart P Evans]

Quite...

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.

Quite, Anderson's reputation did suffer, whether or not the 'abuse' he suffered was justified.

Monro, in writing, categorically denied Anderson's words and, I presume, you are suggesting that Monro, not Anderson, was the liar. Once Anderson had told his tale he really didn't have much choice other than to stick to it and offer mitigation wherever he could. I doubt that he had any documentary evidence but if he did one would presume that it might have revealed his source.

As in 1888/89 the Irish Nationalist antagonism took over but not all of the criticism levelled against Anderson was unjustified. His 'Ripper revelations' cannot be simply divorced from everything else he wrote in his books.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
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
...
Pirate

Yes, and this is where Paul is very clever. For he does not state, as does Martin, that Anderson would not publish 'lies in a book for a wide audience' based on the convoluted religious argument. He just quotes Martin at length on this and if anyone disputes it he bounces it back to Martin and tells you that you have to dispose of Martin's contention before you may disagree with it.

[Jeff Leahy]

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'.

Hi Stewart

More interest in Serial killer behaviour per ce.

Whether the Torso's were all by the same person is almost impossible to say. I guess it depends how many Serial killers you believe can be opporating at anyone time?

But certainly Chapman is a known serial killer living in the area and statistically he seems rather old to have just started with his wives. (Average age around 26-28)

Interestingly Bill Beadle on the conference tour mentioned other body parts (old) being discovered in the area (Pinchin Street) when building work was undertaken a few years back.

Chapman dismembering and hiding bodies doesnt seem such a large leap of faith to me as the Ripper murders.

Yours Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes, and this is where Paul is very clever. For he does not state, as does Martin, that Anderson would not publish 'lies in a book for a wide audience' based on the convoluted religious argument. He just quotes Martin at length on this and if anyone disputes it he bounces it back to Martin and tells you that you have to dispose of Martin's contention before you may disagree with it.

Yes he's a sly old dog, but annoying correct so often.

Check and mate, as they say....

But seriously, PaulB will be the first to say that an independent biography on Anderson is long over due and I'm sure this is something you would welcome yourself.

The question is who is mad enough to undertake it?

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Repeated

'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.

The reason I have repeated Anderson's 1907 claim that the 'facsimile letter' did actually come from Parnell, for which he had 'definite confirmation', is because of the parallel that may be drawn between this claim and the 'definitely ascertained fact' claim in 1910 about the identity of the Ripper.

I don't care whether that was what Anderson merely 'believed', as he does claim it as a fact and not a mere belief. Both claims, 1907 and 1910, fly in the face of the historical evidence, in the first case that the 'facsimile letter' was forged by Pigott and in the second that the police knew the identity of Jack the Ripper when, patently, they did not.

[Stewart P Evans]

Whatever...

...
But seriously, PaulB will be the first to say that an independent biography on Anderson is long over due and I'm sure this is something you would welcome yourself.
...
Pirate

Whatever is an 'independent biography'?

I would welcome a thorough and objective biography of Anderson, but, I fear, such a venture may not appeal to a commercial publisher. Having said that, it would have to be presented using the 'spymaster' and 'Ripper' labels to promote it.

[mariab]

With apologies for butting in like this:
Thank you so much for all the information, Mr. Evans. I'll read John Malcolm's book on casebook, and it's significantly helpful to have you discussing all the older lit before I read Mr. House's book (hopefully next week).

[PaulB]

The reason I have repeated Anderson's 1907 claim that the 'facsimile letter' did actually come from Parnell, for which he had 'definite confirmation', is because of the parallel that may be drawn between this claim and the 'definitely ascertained fact' claim in 1910 about the identity of the Ripper.

I don't care whether that was what Anderson merely 'believed', as he does claim it as a fact and not a mere belief. Both claims, 1907 and 1910, fly in the face of the historical evidence, in the first case that the 'facsimile letter' was forged by Pigott and in the second that the police knew the identity of Jack the Ripper when, patently, they did not.

Okay, let's try to clear this one up. Anderson explained:

"I am far from asserting that the letter is genuine. I leave it an open question. But if it was a forgery, it was concocted for the purposes, not of the Times, but of the extremists among the Land Leaguers, who were both scared and exasperated by Parnell's public denunciations of the murder."

"A busy man sometimes gives a secretary or clerk a draft of a letter, and his signature on a blank sheet of paper, to be used in writing it. I have often done so myself. This may be the explanation of the "facsimile." Or a signature given by Parnell for some other purpose may have been used dishonestly. But which of these hypotheses is the true one can never now be known."

Whilst Anderson evidently left open the possibility that the letter was composed by Parnell, he clearly states that he was not making any such assertion. Instead, he ventured that a paper bearing Parnell's signature obtained by O'Keefe whilst Parnell's amanuensis in Kilmainham, was used by O'Keefe and Land Leaguers and that the letter was written by O'Keefe, not, as is generally accepted, by Pigott.

Anderson therefore did not say that the letter "did actually come from Parnell". It is difficult to think of a clearer statement than, "I am far from asserting that the letter is genuine."

[Stewart P Evans]

Explanation

Okay, let's try to clear this one up. Anderson explained:
"I am far from asserting that the letter is genuine. I leave it an open question. But if it was a forgery, it was concocted for the purposes, not of the Times, but of the extremists among the Land Leaguers, who were both scared and exasperated by Parnell's public denunciations of the murder."
"A busy man sometimes gives a secretary or clerk a draft of a letter, and his signature on a blank sheet of paper, to be used in writing it. I have often done so myself. This may be the explanation of the "facsimile." Or a signature given by Parnell for some other purpose may have been used dishonestly. But which of these hypotheses is the true one can never now be known."
Whilst Anderson evidently left open the possibility that the letter was composed by Parnell, he clearly states that he was not making any such assertion. Instead, he ventured that a paper bearing Parnell's signature obtained by O'Keefe whilst Parnell's amanuensis in Kilmainham, was used by O'Keefe and Land Leaguers and that the letter was written by O'Keefe, not, as is generally accepted, by Pigott.
Anderson therefore did not say that the letter "did actually come from Parnell". It is difficult to think of a clearer statement than, "I am far from asserting that the letter is genuine."

The above explanation by Anderson was written in 1906. Anderson also added, 'Pigott, I repeat, had no part in writing the letter, and he believed it to be genuine.'

He also wrote, 'Parnell's repudiation of it deserves weight; but it must not be forgotten that some of his denials at the Special Commission were untruthful. If the letter was not genuine, the writer traded on the fact that, such was the bitterness of feeling in Ireland at the time, Parnell might have said, and probably did say, that "Burke got no more than his deserts.".'

So I think that it is pretty obvious that Anderson is shifting the responsibility for what was said in the letter (i.e. condoning the murder of Burke) from Pigott and over to Parnell.

You also have to remember that the qualifier that he had 'received additional particulars' which amounted to 'definite confirmation of my statement that it is in the handwriting of Arthur O'Keefe.' and that he had 'obtained further proof, moreover, that at that period O'Keefe was employed by Mr. Parnell as an amanuensis.' was made after the above comments (in 1907) and makes it clear that Anderson was sure that Parnell was responsible for it.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Facsimile Letter'

...
Whilst Anderson evidently left open the possibility that the letter was composed by Parnell, he clearly states that he was not making any such assertion. Instead, he ventured that a paper bearing Parnell's signature obtained by O'Keefe whilst Parnell's amanuensis in Kilmainham, was used by O'Keefe and Land Leaguers and that the letter was written by O'Keefe, not, as is generally accepted, by Pigott.
...

On publication of the facsimile letter in The Times, Parnell stated in the House of Commons that it was 'a villainous and bare faced forgery'.

When O'Donnell brought his libel action against The Times in July 1888 the 'facsimile letter' was read out in court, as well as several other incriminating letters allegedly written by Parnell and Egan (treasurer of the Land League). It was then that Parnell finally requested the appointment of a select committee (but actually got a commission) to inquire into the charges made against him. The commission received the royal assent on 13 August 1888.

The Commission declared all the Pigott letters to be forgeries and absolutely acquitted Parnell of charges based on them.

Pigott had made the first of three confessions before Parnell and Henry Labouchere (at Labouchere's house) on 25 October 1888. The solicitor for The Times, Joseph Soames, was informed of the interview and tackled Pigott who claimed that Labouchere had offered him £1,000 if he would swear he had forged the letters. But on 11 November Pigott wrote to Soames, 'You may take it...as certain that any proceedings that will rely for success on any testimony of any character whatever from me will fail.'

Pigott also demanded money to enable him to remove himself out of jurisdiction but Soames subpoenaed him as a witness for The Times insisting that he must support in the witness-box statements that he had already made under oath as to the authenticity of the letters. Pigott, as we know, collapsed under cross-examination on 22 February 1889. The Times did not know until Pigott's actual appearance as a witness that the Parnell team had convincing proof that Pigott was the forger.

Anderson had no reason to be proud of his collusion with The Times and Harcourt rebuked him for having abused his official position and said he had behaved, 'as a tout for The Times.' Anderson's response was to claim that he had 'acted in the public interest.'

[PaulB]

The above explanation by Anderson was written in 1906. Anderson also added, 'Pigott, I repeat, had no part in writing the letter, and he believed it to be genuine.'

He also wrote, 'Parnell's repudiation of it deserves weight; but it must not be forgotten that some of his denials at the Special Commission were untruthful. If the letter was not genuine, the writer traded on the fact that, such was the bitterness of feeling in Ireland at the time, Parnell might have said, and probably did say, that "Burke got no more than his deserts.".'

So I think that it is pretty obvious that Anderson is shifting the responsibility for what was said in the letter (i.e. condoning the murder of Burke) from Pigott and over to Parnell.

You also have to remember that the qualifier that he had 'received additional particulars' which amounted to 'definite confirmation of my statement that it is in the handwriting of Arthur O'Keefe.' and that he had 'obtained further proof, moreover, that at that period O'Keefe was employed by Mr. Parnell as an amanuensis.' was made after the above comments (in 1907) and makes it clear that Anderson was sure that Parnell was responsible for it.

It doesn't make it clear at all, it merely makes clear that O'Keefe was in a position to have obtained a paper bearing Parnell's signature and that the body of the letter was written by O'Keefe, not Pigott. So Pigott in Anderson's view had no part in writing the letter. Likewise, Parnell was shown to have told lies, the court is still out regarding the extent of his complicity in Fenian activities, and it is generally thought that such was Parnell's almost insurmountably difficult position that he must have given his support to potential allies even though he did not mean it.

[PaulB]

On publication of the facsimile letter in The Times, Parnell stated in the House of Commons that it was 'a villainous and bare faced forgery'.

When O'Donnell brought his libel action against The Times in July 1888 the 'facsimile letter' was read out in court, as well as several other incriminating letters allegedly written by Parnell and Egan (treasurer of the Land League). It was then that Parnell finally requested the appointment of a select committee (but actually got a commission) to inquire into the charges made against him. The commission received the royal assent on 13 August 1888.

The Commission declared all the Pigott letters to be forgeries and absolutely acquitted Parnell of charges based on them.

Pigott had made the first of three confessions before Parnell and Henry Labouchere (at Labouchere's house) on 25 October 1888. The solicitor for The Times, Joseph Soames, was informed of the interview and tackled Pigott who claimed that Labouchere had offered him £1,000 if he would swear he had forged the letters. But on 11 November Pigott wrote to Soames, 'You may take it...as certain that any proceedings that will rely for success on any testimony of any character whatever from me will fail.'

Pigott also demanded money to enable him to remove himself out of jurisdiction but Soames subpoenaed him as a witness for The Times insisting that he must support in the witness-box statements that he had already made under oath as to the authenticity of the letters. Pigott, as we know, collapsed under cross-examination on 22 February 1889. The Times did not know until Pigott's actual appearance as a witness that the Parnell team had convincing proof that Pigott was the forger.

Anderson had no reason to be proud of his collusion with The Times and Harcourt rebuked him for having abused his official position and said he had behaved, 'as a tout for The Times.' Anderson's response was to claim that he had 'acted in the public interest.'

Yes. And....?

[Stewart P Evans]

Proof

It doesn't make it clear at all, it merely makes clear that O'Keefe was in a position to have obtained a paper bearing Parnell's signature and that the body of the letter was written by O'Keefe, not Pigott. So Pigott in Anderson's view had no part in writing the letter. Likewise, Parnell was shown to have told lies, the court is still out regarding the extent of his complicity in Fenian activities, and it is generally thought that such was Parnell's almost insurmountably difficult position that he must have given his support to potential allies even though he did not mean it.

Come on, it's pretty clear what Anderson is implying. I'm sure that many people lied, and that includes Anderson.

But Lewis (for Parnell) had proof that the letter was a forgery by Pigott despite Anderson still believing that the letter was not a forgery by Pigott. We are not concerned, here, as to what extent Parnell's support for the Fenians went, what we are concerned with is the fact that Anderson could not accept that the letter was in any shape or form a Pigott forgery and persisted in trying to foist it back to Parnell in any way that he could.

As a forgery the letter was completely useless for Anderson's purposes.

[Stewart P Evans]

Response

Yes. And....?

I'll let that response speak for itself.

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

The point of this exchange is not to paint Parnell as a saint (unlike Anderson) but to show that the letter was proved to be a Pigott forgery and not connected with Parnell as Anderson tried to imply.