Aaron or not

[Dan Norder]

I dont’ know what I find more depressing, that Dan Norder is completely misrepresenting Paul Begg in a fundamentally dishonest way, or that no one here seems to care that he’s doing it.

What's truly depressing is that you continue misrepresenting pretty much what everyone says in a feeble attempt to attack anyone who has ever proven some of your claims about your favored suspect to be wrong... which is a whole lot of people by this point, because you are so consistently wrong and so consistently unwilling to admit it.

[Observer]

Hi Stewart

I still get the uneasy feeling that all is not right about the information left in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book.

I'd also like to thank you for taking the trouble to scan and reproduce here the marginalia in Swansons copy of Andersons book. It was the first time that I'd viewed the Swanson marginalia. It was also interesting to read your description of the differing types of pencil used, and the fact that the endpaper notes were brighter in appearance. Taking this into account did you form the opinion that the endpaper notes were written at a later date than the faded marginalia?

I was more interested in the faded marginalia, but looking at your scan, could not make out what was written. Could you provide a transcription of the portion of the faded writing? Also would you agree that if any of the notes are authentic, then the faded margin notes are the more likely to have been pencilled by Swanson?

I appreciate that you are at times weary disscussing things Jack the Ripper but would be most interested to read the content of the faded marginalia.

all the best

Observer

[Natalie Severn]

So was Major Henry Smith and a lot of other police "there at the time

My apologies for barging in here when there is such an interesting discussion going on,but I said I would answer some of RJ"s earlier remarks about Dan-and others of us for not quoting their sources,when engaging in criticism of a writer"s work,in this instance Paul Begg"s work.
OK RJ did not make his point in reference to me but he included these "others" and I therefore want to give some specific instances of where I have found Paul Begg a little "wanting" with regards to giving prominence and the fullest possible background information on other police views especially when writing about Anderson"s certainty about his suspect,Kosminski.Anderson wrote both in Blackwell"s serialisation and in his 1910 Autobiography that the police knew the identity of Jack the Ripper and that it was a "definitely ascertained fact"----later allegedly confirmed by name in end notes by Swanson,finishing with the phrase," Kosminski is/was the suspect".

Now Paul does indeed acknowledge that a number of people" found the basic facts of Anderson"s story impossible to digest.It has been argued that one Jew would not have protected another Jew simply because he was Jewish,and Anderson?"s claim has been seen as a gross and serious example of "anti- semitism". page 358 -the Facts.Also ,to be fair ,on that same page Paul cites Sir Robert as having been lambasted in the "Jewish Chronicle" by the contolling editor of that journal, Leopold Jacob Greenberg,under the pen name "Mentor"-for claiming that Jews "guarded [Jack the Ripper] so that he could continue his horrible carreer,just because he was a Jew".
However, a concentrated read of this chapter on Kosminski ,reveals that Paul,for the most part ,shows partiality to Anderson and his views ,and defends his reputation and the significant inconsistencies that appear throughout in certain of Sir Robert"s statements.These can all be discussed in more detail and scope at another time ,suffice is to say that Paul appears to take him at his word and makes many allowances for the criticism"s he received both in his pronouncement on the Ripper and in his CID record. .Moreover,because Anderson thought Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper and Swanson did too,Paul actually finishes the Kosminski chapter with the words "They were there and they ought to know".
So reading those words one is bound to ask oneself,"yes,but who else "WAS THERE" at the time?
And then immediately Anderson"s "definitely ascertained fact" comes under the spot light and in a better perpective, because,actually,hardly anyone else in the police force seems to have agreed with Anderson and Swanson on this. Certainly not Abberline,certainly not Dew ,because they are both on record as saying they did not know.Indeed the only other senior Police Official who happened to mention a "Kosminski" suspect was Sir Melville Macnaghten,and not only did he think Druitt was more likely that Kosminski to have been the Ripper,he announced that there wasnt a shred of evidence against either or any of them.So much for Anderson"s "definitely ascertained FACT"
But to come to my real grouse with Paul over the Kosminski suspect:This has to do with his failure to give any real credence or decent source material to what the prominent City Police Commissioner had to say-----a man who was not only in as senior position as Anderson in the investigation ,but unlike Anderson ,who was in Paris for four of the five canonical murders, WAS actually "THERE AT THE TIME"----and in person,----- viz Major Henry Smith,acting Commissioner of The City Police.And he was present in Mitre Square on the night Catherine Eddowes was murdered.
Sir Henry Smith had a great deal to say about the murders----first and of crucial importance from this City Police Commissioner,a refreshingly open and honest statement that neither he nor any of his men had ever had ANY IDEA where the Ripper lived or who he was ---and this was written TWENTY YEARS after the murders.Moreover he was convinced The Ripper was a Gentile rather than a Jew---and he took Anderson to task in much the same way as the editor of The Jewish Chronicle had above on this delicate matter.
Moreover,in sharp contrast to Paul"s rather sensitive and understanding treatment given to "Sir Robert Anderson", Paul is keen to cite various derogatory remarks he has discovered about Sir Henry Smith in an obscure newspaper,the" Yorkshire Post" where it was noted that Major Smith had never been a "Constable"before becoming a Commissioner and had received the positions he had obtained through "favour"-------[unlike Macnaghten who Monro called over from his tea planting in India to take the post of assistant CHIEF CONSTABLE!!!].The newspaper also thought certain remarks Major Smith made to be not in the best taste----by which I understand them to consider he had implied Anderson"s Polish Jew theory was "anti semitic" etc
and where there has been other criticism made of Major Smith over the years it has originated from Scotland Yard and the metropolitan police,not the City Police and has taken the form of sniping.
Anyway Sir Henry Smith thought Sir Robert Anderson was talking nonsense about a Polish Jew suspect and certainly didnt appear to know about any "identification" that had taken place of a City Police Suspect on his patch----by the Met at that.Must leave it there for now.

[jason_c]

I agree with most of what rjpalmer says. He at least tries to argue his case without resorting to misinterpretation(we are all guilty of it at some time).

No worries rj, im sure someone will be along soon with a snide comment for you.

[rjpalmer]

I read with surprise this lengthy diatribe by RJ Palmer, attacking Dan Norder.

You've GOT to be kidding me, Natalie. I expected better from you.

The trouble is, you're so wound up about Anderson, that you no longer even care if Norder's posts are accurate or fair-minded. As long as he's attacking the Polish Jew theory everything is "peachy keen."

I am in no way, shape, or form supporting either Begg or the Kosminski theory--I've made that plain several times. I am attacking the way in which Dan Norder operates by dishonestly distorting the arguments of the opposition. I've seen him do it to others, and Begg deserves as much fair play as the next fellow. Being "cricket" is the English way, no?

We, as a community, are absolutely LOST if we no longer even require an HONEST RENDITION of the other side's argument. It has to be utterly obvious to anyone who is dispassionately reading this thread that Norder has misstated what Begg was arguing about Schwartz and the identification.


Are you saying, Natalie, that it is O.K? It is, in your mind, o.k. to misrepresent Begg's position simply because you don't agree with it?

If so, then you and I inhabit different planets.

Norder accuses Begg of stating opinion as fact. He never once actually quotes Begg doing this, but IN THE SAME BREATH states that Anderson was "involved" with the Piggott forgeries which is not a proven fact. There is no direct evidence whatsover that Soames didn't originally believe the letters were genuine, and indeed, they had originally been verfied by a document examiner. Anderson's connection to this event is currently theoretical.

You yourself wrongly attribute a quote by an Irish MP to Winston Churchill, and state -- as fact-- that Anderson was involved in 'agent provocateur' schemes.

This is a dubious contention, and I've read widely on the subject. That was really more Edward Jenkinson's method; Monro, Anderson, Williamson, and Littlechild appear to have been committed to a policy of exposure, confrontation, and deterence. It's "o.k." to state this as fact?

You're take on the Parnell Commission is also too biased to be useful as evidence of Anderson's duplicity. There is no evidence that Littlechild, Monro, or Anderson weren't acting in good faith in believing there was a genuine connection between certain Irish MP "Parnellites" and the Clan-na-Gael. Indeed, it is a matter of absolute certainty that the National League in America...which was supplying funds to Parnell's Land League office---was a Clan-na-Gael controlled organization. It was lorded over by Alexander Sullivan in Chicago who was, among other things, guilty of cold blooded murder and insurance fraud--(and yet vocally supported by Henry Labouchere !) Do I think Parnell was treated shabbily? Absolutely. But it is a highly complex set of circumstances, and it defies "dumbing down" and cannot be used as evidence that Scotland Yard, nor the Special Branch, was "crooked." In their mind, they had genuine reasons for suspecting the Irish MP link to American Irish-Nationalism.

Once again: I think there are serious questions about the Polish Jew theory. I support Evans, Harris, Sugden, and others addressing those questions. I also support Begg and Fido's right to have their positions CORRECTLY stated and quoted. If it is obvious to the public that that is not happening, then you are simply playing into hands of the very theory you wish to argue against. The truth is what you should be after, and what should be guiding your posts.

[Jake L]

I still get the uneasy feeling that all is not right about the information left in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book.

I cannot but agree. Doubly so after having read the recent threads here. Of course 'twas a mysterious bit of marginalia to begin with...

One would expect such rather vague, hybrid narratives containing "echoes" of true or alleged events from a journalist (cf. "Sgt White's Nightly Vigil"), rather than from personal notes of someone who has been personally involved in the said events (such as Swanson with Sadler).

When such vagueness (and the host of inaccuracies) is juxtaposed with the odd detail (in the vein of "hands tied behind his back") we do have ann odd mixture indeed.

My point about the Campbell story is just that it doesn't fit in as Swanson's personal (mis)recollection - unless he was completely gaga.

With all this in mind, I wonder if Swanson's notes were a result of, not personal recollections, - but rather notes from conversations with a source (or sources) who had less than perfect recollection/grasp of the events (possibly having no first hand knowledge himself) , or who was vague for some other reason.

In other words, (sorry if this has been suggested n number of times) what if we're looking at someone else's words, jotted down by Swanson?

If Swanson's notes were prompted by the memoirs, who would he consult? A fellow officer? A dear old master?

If further discussions were needed to prise out the name of the "suspect", this would explain the marginalia's staccato ending with the name "Kosminski".

Maybe the marginalia is not a corraboration of Anderson's words, maybe they are Anderson's words?

/jake

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting Point

Another interesting point suggested by the above is the mention of Jacob Cohen of 51 Carter Lane, St. Paul's as being the informant on Aaron Kosminski. This is in view of the recently found reports of Aaron Kosminski being taken to court by the City Police for walking an unmuzzled dog in Cheapside in December 1889. Cheapside is off St. Paul's and in court Kosminski is quoted as saying that the dog was not his and "...the dog belongs to Jacobs; it is not mine." Did Kosminski say, in a simplistic way, 'the dog is Jacob's', meaning Jacob Cohen, who obviously knew Aaron well. I believe others are researching with this possibility in mind.

[Stewart P Evans]

Possibilities

Interesting discussion. Thanks for interesting contributions (especially to Stewart Evans for his scans, always appreciated).
There's one point I'd like to bring up, namely the scenario where "Sailors' Home" in Dock/Well St and "Seaside Home" are mixed up by Swanson.
Given that Duncan Campbell "identified" Sadler at Leman Street police station and that Swanson, who personally saw Sadler on more than one occasion & personally took down Sadler's lengthy statement observing him in some detail (for example, noting the TS was obviously hung over), I find it a bit hard to believe that he'd mix up the London seaman with the immigrant Kosminski as well as misrememebring the identification as taking place elsewhere.
Unless, of course, his memory was seriously beginning to fade...
In other words, if Swanson indeed confused the two events,the implication is that his memory was less than reliable at the time (or totally unreliable).
/jake

Jake, unpopular as the idea might be I lean more towards the whole identification story as being concocted from existing ingredients. You might also say that it is hard to believe that Swanson would make the major mistake of saying Kosminski died shortly after he went into Colney Hatch - but he did say just that.

You may also say that it is hard to believe that Anderson should say that an identification that Swanson states took place before Kosminski's incarceration actually took place after that incarceration - but he did say that. As I keep repeating, we are left with speculation and guesswork when we try to address these problems, and others. Therefore given the nature of the present known information we have no proven answer.

In looking at the possibilities of how the police came to obtain the name 'Kosminski' as a suspect we are similarly in the dark. When Dr. Houchin assessed Kosminski at the workhouse he obtained antecedent information from one Jacob Cohen of 51 Carter Lane, St. Paul's. That information included the fact that Kosminski "took up a knife & threatened the life of his sister.'

We have a fresh Ripper scare just a week after Kosminski is locked up and the fact that the Coles murder was soon dismissed as another Ripper killing. It is easy to see how either Cohen or Houchin (who worked as a police surgeon) could have thought that in Kosminski they had an insane Jew who had threatened a woman with a knife and perhaps the police should consider him as the Ripper so they communicated their information to the police. On being given this information the police could well have checked their records of the October 1888 house-to-house enquiries and found that Kosminski's name was there amongst the many who fitted the critera for a possible murderer.

To my mind the fact that Kosminski's incarceration was quickly followed by another murder that was initially thought to be possibly another Ripper crime must be related to the identification story. Between 14 and 17 February 1891 Sadler was subjected to an attempted identification as Jack the Ripper by a Jewish witness, Lawende. Lawende was unable to identify Sadler but, if the police had just had the insane Kosminki brought to their attention, it would not stretch credulity to suggest that they arranged for Lawende to also see the detained Kosminski for purposes of identification. Granted he was insane and if he was identified his insanity would save him from prosecution but, at least the police might then know that the probable Ripper was locked away insane. This could answer some of the questions raised by what we do know, and it is then still the identification of a Jewish suspect by a Jewish witness.

This, of course, does not square with the Swanson endpaper notes about the identification that was carried out - no more than it does with Anderson's statement that the identification was carried out after the committal to the asylum.

Jake as regards your comments about the Duncan Campbell identification, I am not sure where that fits in. The identification I am concerned with is the one where Lawende was used to try and identify Sadler as the Ripper, and we don't know where that took place. The Sailors' or Seamen's Home identification was cited merely as an element introducing the corrupted idea of a 'Seaside Home' identification because, really, such a location for an identification truly does sound very odd.

I still get the uneasy feeling that all is not right about the information left in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book.

[Jake L]

The Seaside & Sailors' Home -scenario

Interesting discussion. Thanks for interesting contributions (especially to Stewart Evans for his scans, always appreciated).

There's one point I'd like to bring up, namely the scenario where "Sailors' Home" in Dock/Well St and "Seaside Home" are mixed up by Swanson.

Given that Duncan Campbell "identified" Sadler at Leman Street police station and that Swanson, who personally saw Sadler on more than one occasion & personally took down Sadler's lengthy statement observing him in some detail (for example, noting the TS was obviously hung over), I find it a bit hard to believe that he'd mix up the London seaman with the immigrant Kosminski as well as misrememebring the identification as taking place elsewhere.

Unless, of course, his memory was seriously beginning to fade...

In other words, if Swanson indeed confused the two events,the implication is that his memory was less than reliable at the time (or totally unreliable).

/jake

[Stewart P Evans]

R Harding Davies

Hi Stewart,
R Harding Davies, this the author Richard Harding Davies?
Would it be possible to point me in the direction of this article?
Youre right, I am unaware of it.
Cheers
Monty

Yes, but I have a spelling mistake there, it's Davis without the 'e'. The article appeared in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 4, 1889 and was based on an article published by Davis in the Philadelphia press on his return to the USA after visiting London in August 1889. There has been quite a bit written about him and his work with discussion previously on the boards. I seem to recall that Chris George contributed to this. You can read the full article in the press reports section of Casebook.

[Monty]

Off topic, apologies.

Hi Stewart,

R Harding Davies, this the author Richard Harding Davies?

Would it be possible to point me in the direction of this article?

Youre right, I am unaware of it.

Cheers

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Writing About the Ripper

I do not regard these boards as a platform for attacking any individual and personal attacks have no place in such discussions. The work of any respectable and respected author in this field, however, is going to be very influential. And Paul has some heavyweight tomes to his name. He has done some invaluable work in the field and his status cannot be gainsaid. I certainly feel that this is no place for personal disagreements being aired in public.

I have received such attacks myself and it seems to be par for the course for any published author. That is not to say that such attacks are justified, merely that they are to be expected. I do not see it as my place to defend Paul as he is perfectly capable of doing that himself. And should anyone be interpreting what I have said on these threads as being a personal attack on him they could not be further from the truth. Paul is articulate, a clever wordsmith and certainly well read. He knows as much, probably more than, about Anderson and the Kosminski theory as anyone. His words cannot be taken lightly or ignored. Where my disagreement with Paul lies, and he may well see my work in a similar light, is that for what are ostensibly reference works there is a great bias towards Anderson and the Polish Jew theorising. Yes it is an important theory and yes Anderson is a very important figure in the hstory of the Whitechapel murders.

But, I feel, Paul's work goes beyond reasonable coverage of this theory and its main proponent, Anderson. I think he tends to see Anderson through rose-tinted spectacles and as a result presents a biased view. As must be obvious, from what I have written here, my greatest criticism centres on the selectivity of historical material on Anderson that he presents to his readers, often totally omitting things that militate against Anderson and the Polish Jew theory. To my mind that is not presenting the readership with the full facts and allowing them to draw their own conclusions from all the data that is available. My intention has been to provide all the material thus presenting the full picture. It always amazes me how many people are not aware of the R. Harding Davies piece and the Chronicle interview. But, perhaps, not surprising as neither is in the A-Z, albeit they are very relevant.

I do not wish to get into the emotive subject of personal attacks and derogatory remarks as, I hope, I have not done that here. With 'Pirate Jack' I have been trading like for like and I am sure that if we meet again we shall not be trading blows (he's a lot younger than me anyway). My argument with him has been that he is displaying an incredible bias in his writing and that without a good overall knowledge of the subject. My belief is that the ethos in Ripper research and factual writing should be to present the reading public with all the important information and to avoid obvious bias. Paul and I are not professional historians but, because of our past work, we can be very influential in the field. This sits uneasily with me as at times I feel very restricted as to what I can say and my words might be misread as being sour grapes or jealousy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

History has been called 'bunk' as it is largely based on what individuals at the time have regarded as important or significant to themselves and coloured by personal interpretation and belief. So, in a sense, history does not teach nor can it be regarded as a science. We are often left with a combination of myth, propaganda and pure speculation. Ripper research is particularly susceptible to all these factors, a huge element of the radical press reporting being from an anti-authority stance. So political and religious belief and agendas are a big factor. The police reporting is therefore seen as being the best source of information. But even the police reports are far from flawless and must contain some personal opinion and interpretation of those making the reports.

As self-taught and self-appointed published historians of the case we must not lose sight of the fact that our words are going to carry some influence and we should, as far as we can, try to remain objective. This certainly is not possible in a book all about a suspect, such as mine on Tumblety which leaves me open to valid criticism. But if we are writing a reference work then we should, as far as possible, try to be objective and not have any ostensible bias or agenda. For my part I see this as sharing what information I have as much as possible and trying not to influence anyone into a particular line of thinking. But my perceived 'anti-Anderson' stance may be seen as just that. It is not meant to be and I have been trying to redress what I have seen as an imbalance in writing on Anderson.

In the investigation of the Ripper mystery it is very easy to adopt the approach of the historical novelist and to dramatise the events. This is often what the publishers and readers want. After all, what could be more boring than reporting the bare facts, as far as they go, without personal interpretation and opinion. We have to question and assess the people involved and their motives. In trying to get a true picture of these people and their motives we often find a tangle of myth and misinterpretation surrounding them. We should not propagate the myth.

In order to write about such historical mysteries as the Ripper murders it is necessary, or even imperative, to have an extensive knowledge of the subject and its background. We should be able to reduce the problem to its simplest terms without misrepresenting it. If we see imbalance we should try to redress it. There is no 'top dog' in this field, merely an assortment of amateur historians, with varying degrees of knowledge, trying to get to their own idea of the truth

[Natalie Severn]

I read with surprise this lengthy diatribe by RJ Palmer, attacking Dan Norder.
Lets get a few things straight.I personally have found a number of the pronouncements of Sir Robert Anderson made during the Ripper scare pretty appalling whether it be from his deeply unpleasant remarks on why the police should withdraw support from defenceless women scatching for a few pence on Whitechapel Streets in order to survive the night or arrogantly overruling five highly qualified medical practitioners including the Police Surgeon in Chief,over Rose Mylett"s death, or regarding his disgusting utterances on the nature of "low class members of the Jewish Community" which is tied to the reasons he gives for selecting Kosminski,an incarcerated , Polish Jew .Kosminski"s records from the beginning indicate he was harmless throughout his 29 year stay---this at a time when medication could not control psychosis or violent behaviour .I am pleased to know that at least one prominent member of the police, Major Henry Smith,Chief Commissioner of the City Police,thought likewise,particularly of the aspersions cast on the local Jewish community by Sir Robert Anderson ,in his endeavours to name Jack the Ripper,years after the event.I am also personally well aware of Robert Anderson"s long history of duplicity,disinformation and libellous conduct during his years as a master spy heading the CID.
It is actually in the spirit of posthumously defending Kosminski, a mentally ill man who lived out his sad life incarcerated in a lunatic asylum,hearing voices,that I would argue with Paul Begg over his Kosminski chapter in The Facts.It is not even that I reject Kosminski as a suspect---he may have been Jack the Ripper ;it is what Paul bases his information on in this chapter that I take issue with, and the way he takes an assumption and somehow or other makes it sound like a statement of fact.I have said before that I admire a great deal of Paul Begg"s work but there is actually quite a bit of this "contorted reasoning" in the Kosminski chapter---where one is expected to somehow suspend critical judgement in order to follow certain of Paul"s reasoning as well as his bland acceptance of Anderson"s "word". Later today I hope to select these and quote them if this is what RJ Palmer requires.Moreover, I believe Dan Norder,in his post of yesterday, said nothing untoward.It was a good post and it needed saying although I dont myself see any need to make personal remarks about Paul Begg, who has after all,in so many other ways provided us with so much outstanding research and information.

[rjpalmer]

Finis

NOW, FOLKS LET ME BE BLUNT. ONE MAN'S OPINION AND SHOOT ME IF YOU MUST.

IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE IOTA TO ME IF YOU ACCEPT BEGG’S ARGUMENTS. BUT FOR GAWD SAKE HAVE WE REACHED THE POINT IN RIPPER STUDIES WHERE A MAN CAN COMPLETELY MISREPRESENT ANOTHER AUTHOR’S WORK AND NO ONE EVEN CARES THAT HE IS DOING IT?


If I had to be pressed on the issue, I would state that I tend to agree closest to the thinking of Stewart Evans and Phil Sugden. I do believe they have pointed out many problematic concerns about Anderson's statements that have not been satisfactorily addressed. All I am saying is that we must be fair with authors --even authors we dont’ agree with, by not misstating their positions.

The Kosmisnki theorists are not stupid. Indeed, there are bright stars in those skies. They are not going to be convinced by a series of arguments when they can see that the detractors of the theory are being underhanded. I don’t refer to either Colin or Stewart.

If we are to defeat the opposition, let's do it with honor.

Respectfully submitted.

[rjpalmer]

Part Two

Please note: I have no problem with anyone “taking on” a published author. Nor am I here to “defend” Begg or “defend” the Polish Jew theory. But if one is going to “take on” an author, I think they should at least have the honesty to ACCURATELY state the opposing position. The most obvious way of doing this is to QUOTE THEM.

The grotesque hypocrisy is that Norder, in misstating Begg’s position, is doing EXACTLY what he is accusing Paul Begg of doing...’twisting the facts.’ Much of the contention on these boards could be avoided if we give an honest rendition of the opposing argument.

Here are the examples from Norder’s posts.

Norder has stated SEVERAL times, in different ways, that this is Begg’s position:

Begg inists that the person referred to as the "City PC" who witnessed someone in "Mitre Square" as being Schwartz, who was not a PC, not in the City, and nowhere near Mitre Square.

Elsewhere Norder puts it thus:

That's where he gets into trying to claim that a witness described as being related to the City PC and being near Mitre Square was actually someone in Berner Street completely unrelated to any City police investigation, and so forth and so on..

This is dishonesty. This is NOT Begg’s position. Beggs states specifically that he thinks there is a possibility that Macnaghten and Anderson are referring to two different men. Please note that Norder “gets away with it” becaue he AVOIDS actually quoting Begg.

Second of all, Begg does not “insist” anything --it is not his rhetorical style, and if anything Begg has been chided in the past for sitting on the fence. I defy Norder to actually quote Begg stating this “insistance” or anything similar to it. In reality, Begg goes through several scenerios, saving the Schwartz one for last, to which he devotes two very brief paragraphs. (p. 382)


Allow me, if I may, to go through what Begg actually writes. Please note Begg’s tone as opposed to the accusatory tone of his critic.

“Who was the witness?”

“Turning to the thorny problem of who the witness could have been, we immediately encounter a conflict because Macnaghten and sources apparently based on him suggest that the witness was a City PC, while Anderson and Swanson say the witness was a Jew (who is unlikely to have been a policeman because a policeman is highly unlikely to have refused to give evidence). (pg. 378)

Thus Begg begins with an entirely legitimate historical method; he refers to one of the key primary sources --the Macnaghten memo--- (which he quotes elsewhere in full) --and then points out that it is problematic. He points out that there is no known City PC witness, and briefly touches on the possiblity that though he MIGHT exist (because the City archives are lost) there is no evidence that he does, so it is probably a garbled account. (p. 379).


Begg then writes:


“A popular alternative to this scenerio (ie., to there being an actual City PC) is the suggestion that Macnaghten misremembered the witness as a City PC when in fact it was Joseph Lawende, the Jewish traveller in the cigarette trade who saw a woman he thought was Eddowes at the entrance to Mitre Square. The solution has the attractiveness of retaining the location given by Macnaghten (Mitre Square), gives us a Jewish witness, as stated by Anderson and Swanson, and explains why the City CID maintained surveillance on the suspect.” (p. 379)

So here is Begg giving historical arguments for Anderson’s witness being Joseph Lawende. Please Note: Begg states that it is a POPULAR theory and an ATTRACTIVE option.

Yet, relying purely on Norder’s ugly screed, no one reading these boards would ever realize that Begg even acknowledged this as a possibility, let alone stated that it was both “popular” and “attractive.”

Indeed NORDER write on the “Facts” thread:

he [Begg] presents his own opinions as if they were the facts and pretends (either through omission or outright declaring it) that nobody who says anything different even exists. .

Ugly, ugly allegation, but here we see that Begg does indeed acknowledge an opposing possibility. He even quotes, in full, the Daily Telegraph from February 1891, showing that Lawende was used to identify Sadler. (p. 379)

A note on tone. Does Begg dowplay Lawende? Certainly; he does so by the rhetorical technique of making the ridiculous contrast between a “City PC’ and “Jewish traveller in the cigarette trade.” Do the Lawende theorist use a similar rhetorical gimmicks? Yes; by suggesting the “City PC’ could be confused with a “City Witness.”’ Logically, I dont’ really see much of a difference in the two rhetorical devises since we are talking about a man’s alleged mental confusion. I dont’ see where one confusion is particularly better than the next.

But let’s return to Norder’s argument:

Begg inists that the person referred to as the "City PC" who witnessed someone in "Mitre Square" as being Schwartz, who was not a PC, not in the City, and nowhere near Mitre Square.

This is not what Begg is arguing, and either Norder hasn’t even bothered to recently read the book, or he is deliberately perverting the meaning.

In reality, Begg bounces around several scenerios, only ONE of which is that perhaps the ‘City PC’ is not a garbled memory of Lawende (as Norder believes) but is a garbled memory a Met PC, or, in other words, PC Smith in Berner Street. (See below for a different reason for this agument, that is NOT based on a 'garble')

Norder’s outrage at this suggestion is (and I quote):

That's where he gets into trying to claim that a witness described as being related to the City PC and being near Mitre Square was actually someone in Berner Street completely unrelated to any City police investigation, and so forth and so on..

This is an odd argument because Norder himself doesn’t believe the City PC ever existed. So he is every bit as guilty of suggesting a ‘substitution’ as Begg is. Further, Begg argues that Macnaghten at times IS confused between Mitre Square and Berner Street, because at one point “in describing the murder of Elizabeth Stride in Berner Street, Macnaghten states that the murderer was disturbed by three Jews in a cart.” (p 381). This, Begg argues, is an obvious confusing of Levy, Lawende, and Harris. Thus, the confusion between the two locales is not as ridiculous as Norder makes it out to be, and, indeed, there is even a precident for Macnaghten confusing Mitre Square and Berner Street. Of course, once again, Norder doesn’t acknowledge this anywhere in his posts.

But let us return to Begg:

“This possibility (that the City PC is actually the Met PC Smith) does have a satisfying neatness about it. There is no need to postulate a City PC of whom we know nothing, or to suppose that Macnaghten confused a Jewish traveller in cigarettes with a City police constable. The Metropolitan Police would not have been taking a suspect to be identified by a City witness, and Anderson would not have been basing his conclusions on an unsatisfactory wintess. The only difficulty is that PC Smith is not a Jew, could not have been the Jewish witness, and, if all he thought was that the suspect was the same height and build as the man he’s seen, his testimony would hardly have had the importance Anderson and Swanson clearly attached to it.” (p. 381)

A note about tone. I don’t necessarily agree with Begg’s conclusions, and I think it is fair to point out that he is giving Swanson (and hence Anderson) the ‘benefit of the doubt,’ but that’s not the point. What is the point is that I can’t bring myself to use the accusatory tone that Norder uses. Clearly, here is an author who realizes we are dealing with difficult and conflicting source materials, which have multiple interpretations, and thus he is battiing about different scenerios--which is very different from what Norder is accusing him of doing. Why is it necessary to be so sanctimonious?

But, beyond all this, it is clear that Norder does not have a clear grasp of the situation. Despite what Norder is implying, NOWHERE does Swanson (nor Anderson) state that the witness used to identify the Polish Jew (evidently Aaron Kosminski) was a CITY WITNESS. NOWHERE. All Swanson states is that the suspect was being watched --and watched on Met turf-- by the City C.I.D. This is entirely different. Since it was, by Swanson’s own account, the Met who ‘sent’ the Pole to the alleged confontation, Norder’s strange statement that this MUST be a City witness becomes incomprehensible:

That's where he gets into trying to claim that a witness described as being related to the City PC and being near Mitre Square was actually someone in Berner Street completely unrelated to any City police investigation, and so forth and so on..

Let me say it again slowly. The whole strange scenerio of the Swanson end paper is that the MET took a suspect on MET turf and ‘sent him’ to be confronted by a witness. If it can be taken at face value, it does not imply that the witness, nor the investigation (on the Met’s end of things) had to be “related” to the City Police investigation or to a City witness. Indeed, Begg’s whole argument is that the Met would most likely be using THEIR OWN WITNESS...ie. Schwartz. So Norder is guilty of imposing his own assumptions onto Begg and then blaming him for it.

Indeed, it is obvious to anyone who has actually read Begg’s chapter that he ultimately is suggesting that quite possibly Anderson’s witness and the witness named by Macnaghten in the memo WERE TWO DIFFERENT MEN. But even here Begg admits doubt.

“In short, he wasn’t and couldn’t have been Anderson’s witness--unless Macnaghten’s witness was not Anderson’s witness and Macnaghten did not know about the identification by the Jewish witness.”
“This notion is unpalatable. It seems inconceivable that Macnaghten would not have known about Anderson’s Jewish witness, yet his ignorance of the witness would explain why he didn’t mention him and would certainly explain why Macnaghten and those who based their accounts on him did not attach signficance to Anderson’s theory.” (p. 382)

No one reading Norder’s contibutions to these threads would ever have realized in a million years that Begg actually raised the spectre that the witness in Macnaghten’s memo (the City PC) and the unnamed witness in Anderson’s autobiography (the reluctant Jew) were not the same man. Why? Because Norder has “dumbed down” Begg’s arguments and presented them in a fundamentally disreputable manner by not quoting them.

So, to cut to the chase, what about Begg’s suggestion that the witness was Schwartz? He suggests this based on the fact that several witnesses had seen victims talking to men (Long, Hutchinson, Lawende, etc.) but only one had seen an actual attack (Schwartz).

I don’t insist that anyone needs to accept that out-of-hand, but I do think we should honestly present what he is actually arguing and not invent some meaning of our own.

In Norder’s world, the Swanson marginalia cannot be trusted. Swanson’s account is hopelessly garbled and he is referring to Lawende and the Seaman’s Home, despite the fact that Sadler is not a Jew, did not live with brother in the heart of Whitechapel, and was not hauled off to an asylum, nor, as far as we know, ever under surveillance by the City C.I.D. It is fair to say there are attractive elements to Norder’s theory, but there are also unattractive elements to his theory.

In Begg’s world, he argues that we know little about the Kosminski investigation, Swanson might be accurately stating what occurred, and the witness may have been Schwartz.

In Begg’s view, if Schwartz identified Kosminski, and then withdrew the identification, he would have beenworthless afterwards as a reliable police witness, which is why the Met from that point on only used Lawende (ie., in the Sadler and Grainger cases).

One can see this thinking in Inspector Reid’s summation of the Tabram case:

“Pearly Poll and the P.C. having both picked out the wrong men they could not be trusted again as their evidence would be worthless.” Edmund Reid L. Inspector 24 SEpt. 1888

Begg is arguing this happened with Schwartz sometime before the Coles murder. There is no extant evidence of this, of course.

The bottom line is that these are difficult and confusing texts and we need to avoid the "holier than thou" tone.