Kosminski Identification Questions

[PaulB]

It seems odd to me that you say that it is wrong to presume that you agree with Martin, yet you often quote him in this context. And you admit that your readers should take it into consideration or be aware of it.

Bizarre. A knowledgeable and informed source makes an assessment based on an understanding and appreciation I don't possess of Anderson's religious convictions and you think it is odd that I should reference it and feel that my readers should be aware of it!

In the preceding paragraph you state, 'there is no cohesive and persuasive argument against the truth of Anderson's story', and, rather to the detriment of those who don't agree with you, 'The arguments are often poorly thought through, but they boil down to Anderson's veracity,' you then identify the problem you have with strict adherence to Anderson's word, 'and analysis of the Kosminski story is as much an analysis of Anderson as it is an examination of the facts about the suspect.' Well of course it is, for Anderson tells us, positively, that he was identified as Jack the Ripper.

You are now shifting away from any discussion going on here to my article which was an objective assessment of Anderson. People won't know what you are talking about.

In further trying to emphasise the truth of Anderson's words you state, 'Anderson also lacked a reason for lying. In his autobiography he wrote that "kudos is not gained by preventing crimes, but by detecting them and successfully prosecuting the offenders", and, since the Ripper wasn't prosecuted, there was no kudos.'

But aren't you misleading your readers a bit here? Apart from the fact that knowing who the Ripper was and that he was 'safely caged' is much better than having no clue as to his identity, your quote is taken out of context. For you have omitted the first five words of Anderson's quote which, in full, reads, 'For in Secret Service work, kudos is not to be gained by preventing crimes, but by detecting them, and successfully prosecuting the offenders!' (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, page 99).

This, then, puts the quote in a different context altogether. And the quote is given in the context of the use of agents provocateur to secure convictions in the case of outrages committed (specifically) by the Irish terrorists.

No, I'm not misleading anyone. It is not unreasonable to assume that if he believed kudos in secret service work was to be gained from detecting crimes and prosecuting the offenders that he felt similarly about the detection of ordinary crimes, particularly ones of the magnitude of Jack the Ripper.

And I was not "trying to emphasise the truth of Anderson's words", I was simply observing that Anderson lacked a reason for lying.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fine

Bizarre. A knowledgeable and informed source makes an assessment based on an understanding and appreciation I don't possess of Anderson's religious convictions and you think it is odd that I should reference it and feel that my readers should be aware of it!
...

'Bizarre', really??? Fine, you look upon Martin as 'a knowledgeable and informed source' and are accepting his subjective conclusion on one aspect of the man (his religion, which, by the way, I do have more than a passing knowledge of) as the be all and end all on his honesty and accuracy. Sorry, I don't agree with that (and I am not alone).

[Stewart P Evans]

No....

...
You are now shifting away from any discussion going on here to my article which was an objective assessment of Anderson. People won't know what you are talking about.
...

No I am not, these things are germane to the whole debate. It's an old tactic of yours to try to focus on one tiny aspect to enable you to claim that anything else is either 'off topic' or 'not relevant'.

[Jeff Leahy]

The thread is Kosminski Identification Question.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Misleading

...
No, I'm not misleading anyone. It is not unreasonable to assume that if he believed kudos in secret service work was to be gained from detecting crimes and prosecuting the offenders that he felt similarly about the detection of ordinary crimes, particularly ones of the magnitude of Jack the Ripper.
And I was not "trying to emphasise the truth of Anderson's words", I was simply observing that Anderson lacked a reason for lying.

Yes you are misleading. The quote of Anderson's that you use to say that he 'lacked a reason for lying' because there 'was no kudos' involved did not relate to, and could not be used to qualify, his remarks with regard to knowing the identity of the Ripper. And we now see that you are slipping in the words 'not unreasonable to assume' to justify your use of it. Why did you omit the important opening words of Anderson's comment, "For in Secret Service work..."

And it was not used by Anderson in the context of saying that in general terms kudos only attached to his Ripper remarks 'since the Ripper wasn't prosecuted.' Anderson's reason for using the observation on kudos was strictly in relation to Secret Service work where 'preventing outrages' carried no glory or recognition (as no one got to know about them) whereas if a plot was allowed to mature and come to fruition (the informer often acting as an agent provocateur) the rewards of a successful arrest and conviction followed.

You now say that it was an assumption, but you did not allow your readers to see that it was an assumption, nor to see it in its true context. It actually had nothing to do with his feelings about the non-conviction of the Ripper. With regard to the Ripper Anderson was claiming that they were not unsolved crimes at all, that the police knew the identity of the Ripper and that the Ripper had been 'safely caged in an asylum'.

[Stewart P Evans]

If...

The thread is Kosminski Identification Question.
Pirate

If you can't see that this whole debate is about the way that the question of identification and Anderson's veracity has been presented then please keep out of it.

[PaulB]

Could someone clarify this point for me?
With many-many apologies for the newbie question.

The Andersonites always counter anything said against Anderson as politically motivated prejudice, even in the face of mounting criticism of Anderson from many contemporary sources. And remember, this book was published in 1910 in London and not a peep of protest was heard from Anderson who must have known about it and had a copy.

Hopefully there is no need to point out that Stewart's observation that 'The Andersonites always counter anything said against Anderson as politically motivated prejudice' is without foundation, except as it pertains to Churchill's comments in 1910, but I would concur that Mallon via Frederick Moir Bussey presents a very dismal picture of Anderson as self-important and easily duped. To what extent this is true is problematic, for as Clutterbuck points out, Mallon's claim that Millen humbugged Anderson over the Jubilee Plot is countered to some extent by Monro's concerns over the event in his unpublished memoirs. Nevertheless, Anderson walks from Bussey's pages looking a very sad and bedraggled man.

[Stewart P Evans]

One thing...

One thing I have to say is that Paul very early on recognised the importance of Anderson's background, the political situation and the relevance of the Irish situation. He has done much valuable work in this regard.

[PaulB]

'Bizarre', really??? Fine, you look upon Martin as 'a knowledgeable and informed source' and are accepting his subjective conclusion on one aspect of the man (his religion, which, by the way, I do have more than a passing knowledge of) as the be all and end all on his honesty and accuracy. Sorry, I don't agree with that (and I am not alone).

I can only shake my head in wonderment. Martin Fido is 'knowledgeable and informed', his conclusion is not 'subjective' but was based on a totally objective assessment of the evidence then available to him, and I am not accepting that conclusion, I am simply citing it as any balanced commentator should. Nor am I saying it is the 'be all and end all' of his honesty. These are your fancies, not reality.

Once again, Martin Fido concluded on the basis of his understanding of Anderson's religious convictions that Anderson would not have lied in his memoirs for personal or departmental kudos. I merely draw attention to this conclusion.

[PaulB]

No I am not, these things are germane to the whole debate. It's an old tactic of yours to try to focus on one tiny aspect to enable you to claim that anything else is either 'off topic' or 'not relevant'.

Here you go again, 'an old tactic'..! I don't indulge in tactics, I just object to people who spiral off on one argument after another so that the original point gets obscured and lost.

This started off with your blanket ascription to "committed Andersonites" a conclusion of Martin Fido's which as far as I am aware hasn't featured in anybody else's arguments, including mine, and is an ascription which typifies your dominant opinion that anyone who gives Anderson more than passing credence is biased up to the gills.

[Stewart P Evans]

Read

Here you go again, 'an old tactic'..! I don't indulge in tactics, I just object to people who spiral off on one argument after another so that the original point gets obscured and lost.
This started off with your blanket ascription to "committed Andersonites" a conclusion of Martin Fido's which as far as I am aware hasn't featured in anybody else's arguments, including mine, and is an ascription which typifies your dominant opinion that anyone who gives Anderson more than passing credence is biased up to the gills.

I am afraid that people are going to have to read and understand this debate and draw their own conclusions.

I do not have the opinion 'that anyone who gives Anderson more than passing credence is biased up to the gills', that would be a crass assumption. My opinion is that too much importance has been attached to Anderson's identification claims and in support of those claims a one-sided view of Anderson and his veracity has been given in the past. And that view has been accepted by a lot of readers who know no better.

In redressing the balance and presenting much more information on Anderson I have been accused of being anti-Anderson and making unfair comments about him. I do not think that is the case as I speak as I find. There are many good things about his books and they are very useful. But, as with any such source, they have to be looked at in the proper context and with an understanding of the content.

I find Martin far too biased for my liking and cannot agree with many of his conclusions. But I really do not wish to stray into that area. It's fine to base study on Anderson's claims and to theorise as regards his suspect and conclusions. Such study and research is valid and some very good people are doing it. From all this it must be clear that my feelings towards Anderson are ambivalent.

[PaulB]

If you can't see that this whole debate is about the way that the question of identification and Anderson's veracity has been presented then please keep out of it.

Actually, I only entered this "discussion" to counter your attribution of Martin's conclusion to all so-called "committed Andersonites". I don't use Martin's argument and nor, to my knowledge do John Malcolm or Rob House or anyone else who might fall within that categorisation of "committed Andersonite".

Furthermore, I think the phrase "committed Andersonite" reflects your personal and erroneous conviction that those who give weight to Anderson are completely and utterly unable to assess evidence objectively.

For example, I have no “need” to show that Anderson was unable to lie in The Lighter Side… I am very well aware that memoirs are broadly self-serving and potentially unreliable, thus they are treated with due caution and there are various established methods of testing an author’s reliability which historians and biographers use all the time, not the least of which is testing the reliability of other claims the author makes. So therefore far from needing to show that Anderson would not have lied, it actually matters nought to me whether Anderson's religious convictions would have prevented him from lying in his memoirs or not, though it is a consideration certainly worth noting, and I do note it.

But the fact is that the whole issue of whether Anderson would have lied or not is far, far more important to you and is referenced by you a great deal, and has even been misrepresented by you as an effort to paint Anderson as some sort of whiter than white paragon, which has no basis in truth whatsoever. You also attribute it to all "Andersonites", when in truth it is an argument advanced only by Martin some 20-years ago and in the specific context of replying to charges made by Stephen Knight. It's living in the past.

[Stewart P Evans]

Offending sentence

Actually, I only entered this "discussion" to counter your attribution of Martin's conclusion to all so-called "committed Andersonites". I don't use Martin's argument and nor, to my knowledge do John Malcolm or Rob House or anyone else who might fall within that categorisation of "committed Andersonite".
...

The offending sentence appears in my post #88 where I state, '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.'

I did not mention Martin but, as we know, that claim was made by Martin back in 1987 and has been repeated many times since by you and in the A-Z. Those who espouse the Anderson/Polish Jew theory take Anderson's words as the truth believing that he would not lie in his book. That claim has been made to me many times in the past. Are you now saying that people such as John Malcolm and Rob House do not agree that 'Anderson would not have lied or deceived in his published secular writings'?

[Stewart P Evans]

Actually

...
...
Furthermore, I think the phrase "committed Andersonite" reflects your personal and erroneous conviction that those who give weight to Anderson are completely and utterly unable to assess evidence objectively.
...

The phrase was, actually, 'convinced Andersonite', sorry to nit-pick.

It is utterly wrong to ascribe to me a conviction 'that those who give weight to Anderson are completely and utterly unable to assess evidence objectively', I have never said that. But I know how you hate any suggestion that you may have any bias. I regard people such as Rob and John as excellent researchers with intelligent minds who have produced some essential work on the subject. You are now misrepresenting me.

We are all capable of bias, and if a student of the case is assessing the evidence only on the published works of certain authors then he may not have the full evidence available for properly assessing a source such as Anderson. I, in fact, warn people off my first book because it is a 'suspect book' which has to be selective and biased in favour of the suspect.

I am sure that most intelligent researchers are capable of objective assessment, if they are presented with the fullest possible source material and have not been swayed by the tendentious writings of other authors who may have reached some odd or self-serving conclusions.

[Stewart P Evans]

Issue

...
...
But the fact is that the whole issue of whether Anderson would have lied or not is far, far more important to you and is referenced by you a great deal, and has even been misrepresented by you as an effort to paint Anderson as some sort of whiter than white paragon, which has no basis in truth whatsoever. You also attribute it to all "Andersonites", when in truth it is an argument advanced only by Martin some 20-years ago and in the specific context of replying to charges made by Stephen Knight. It's living in the past.

The issue of whether Anderson would have lied or not is important. If I have misrepresented something I suggest that if you produce the offending piece I shall address it.

It is rather odd for you to now to state that it was 'an argument advanced only by Martin some 20-years ago and in the specific context of replying to charges made by Stephen Knight. It's living in the past.' I really cannot work that one out, I really can't. Are you saying that Martin's claim about Anderson's veracity is relevant only in the context of a response to Stephen Knight? Living in the past? Then why repeat it in extenso in 2004 in The Facts and with no reference to Knight? You've lost me.