Aaron or not

[rjpalmer]

Part One

I am not an advocate of the Kosminski theory, but these have been sad days for me reading through this forum.

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.

Indeed, many even seem to relish the fact. The attitude seems to be--as long as you can bash Anderson & the Kosminski theory or even Paul Begg, it doesn’t matter how underhanded you are in doing it...

In truth, Norder is engaging in the same dishonest tactics that Ivor Edwards and others engaged in while attacking the Tumblety theory: frequently misrepresent the opposing author’s point, giving a series of faulty arguments, and then compounding the issue by weaving a series of insinuations that the theorist in question was engaging in dishonesty. This seems to be the status quo for “Ripper Studies” and I find it disheartening.

Why is it that we can’t challenge a theory in a fundamentally civilized manner?

I entirely support Stewart and Colin’s efforts to question the Kosminski theory, and doing so by stating their historical sources and even, when appropriate, scanning original documents. Well done.

What I do not suport is beig put in the unhappy position of actually having to defend a theory, merely because some of the contributors are being intellectually dishonest. I refer specifically to Dan Norder.

Please note that in NOT ONE SINGLE POST on this thread does Dan Norder even have the common courtesy of actually quoting Paul Begg’s work. NOT ONCE. Even though I specfically asked him to do so two weeks ago. And no, I am not in Begg’s ‘camp.” I have never met Begg and I do not exchange email with him. I’ve never been particularly convinced by the Polish Jew theory.

What I find disturbing is that Norder uses his own words to express Begg’s arguments--and then attacks those words. This is the exact opposite of the “rules of scholarly debate” that Norder hypocritically states he is defending.

Why does he not actually quote Begg? Because it allows Norder to misstate and misrepresent Begg’s postition, in the same underhanded way that he has done to others. And this is what I object to.

I will give examples below.

[Varqm]

Its more likely that the kosminsky mentioned by Swanson/Mcnaughten/Andersson was Aaron. I think they
had very few police notes on him or little to go on with, like a lot of other suspects,that's why the muddled
or inconsistent recollection of him (and possibly any suspect ) by Swanson/Andersson.
Because Aaron was suspected closer to the date Mcnaughten wrote his three suspects , Kosminski was chosen
among his three not because of anything related to evidence.
I think Kosminski should not be rated any better than any suspect.

[Natalie Severn]

As if eh! .....and the suspect went off humming quietly to himself,then as soon as he was out of earshot he snapped his fingers,blew a kiss to the air,and shouted "Yes....!YES.....! I"ve done it again-----hey-I can get away with anything if I can get away with that----Happy Kayking Pirate!"

"Oh, that was the Ripper, but you won't swear to it because you're both Jews? Sure, no worries, it's not like we want to actually make an arrest or anything. Care for some tea?"

You stopped short, Dan !!!

"Aaron, you run along now: Your presence is no longer required. Do try to behave; and please stay close to your brother's house in Whitechapel. Why don't we say ... no excursions farther a field than Cheapside; OK ???"


Colin

[Dan Norder]

IHowever is there any evidence that Andersons memory was so bad as to make such a monumental error while writing his book?

This is utterly pathetic, as it has already been answered by multiple people: Yes, yes there is.

And, as far as memory goes, we don't even know how directly involved Anderson was in the Kosminski investigation. As a desk-bound supervisor filling a role that was more political than investigatory, he would have gotten his information from other sources. Swanson was the one directly involved on the ground at the time, and we know he was actively involved in the Sadler case. A certain amount of Anderson's mistaken notions could simply have been a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of what Swanson had written. Some other part can be chalked up to his reinterpreting the world based upon his own pre-conceived notions of how the world worked (he had very peculiar and strict Christian beliefs even for the Victorian era, a time when racism and religious bigotry was pretty rampant to begin with). Some other part can be chalked up to him having had the facts once but jumbling them up in his head decades later, which is when his "theory" became a "definitely ascertained fact" in his head.

There's no doubt that Kosminski was suspected at some point. Lots of people were suspected, and many for reasons that were nothing more than hunches and possibilities, graspng at straws. Kosminski was mentally ill and allegedly threatened a women with a knife (in the only known incidence of any sort of violent thoughts in his entire life, incidentally). That alone would be far more than the kinds of very weak reasons other people had been suspected.

The main reason Kosminski is treated as such a serious suspect by some people are the claims made by Anderson and Swanson many years later that a witness had positively identified him as the person seen near Mitre Square (not Berner Street, as Begg tries to turn it into to make it sound like the sighting was more than a fleeting glimpse and so he can twist things to make them sound even more damning than what Anderson and Swanson actually said) but then refused to testify. This claim doesn't match what other officials said, doesn't even sound plausible ("Oh, that was the Ripper, but you won't swear to it because you're both Jews? Sure, no worries, it's not like we want to actually make an arrest or anything. Care for some tea?"), and is only first mentioned in sources that include a number of blatant errors (like the claim that Kosminski was already dead).

On top of everything else, the idea that Anderson couldn't twist facts around in his head to support his favored suspect is just ridiculous, especially when we see all the time in this field authors and others twisting facts around to try to support their own suspects. If authors a century later can live in a world of denial in which facts that aren't convenient to his beliefs get automatically naysayed, attacked and hidden away, then obviously Anderson (as someone with strong religious and racial stereotypes as well as having his whole career tied up in his failure to catch the Ripper) would have had even more reason to do the same thing himself.

[Jeff Leahy]

I'm afraid I must also..my computor is going to the doctor now...

and I'm taking the girls Kyaking...

But I will do some research over the weekend instead..I beleive Fido has some things to say with reguad to Anderson..and need to trace his book..

Have a good one

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Silly

Its common for memory to go in your fourties..especially after a glass of wine...However is there any evidence that Andersons memory was so bad as to make such a monumental error while writing his book?

I don't think there is..

Sometimes debates get a bit silly, especailly when you have already addressed the point fully. That's the time to stop debating.

[Jeff Leahy]

It is common for the memory to begin to fail in the 60s. My, you are wriggling aren't you.

Its common for memory to go in your fourties..especially after a glass of wine...However is there any evidence that Andersons memory was so bad as to make such a monumental error while writing his book?

I don't think there is..

[Jeff Leahy]

So now I'm paranoid?

No a clearly said you have the right to be paraniod

[Stewart P Evans]

Wriggling

And just another point on Anderson..I don't think its possible to make a simplistic accessment of Andersons Character (Not that I'm saying either you or Begg would do so). I cant see any evidence that he would 'lie' on the case of a serial murderer..although I except the flaws you and Nat's raise about his character. He may have made small factual errors..
But confussing 'a Gentile for a jew' and 'positive for negative' is a big jump of the imagination..he was only between 65-69 while writing his memior's..
I cant see even Anderson getting that wrong.

I have provided an example of Anderson being devious over the Mylett murder, and that was one of the 'Whitechapel series' in the files.

I'm not saying he confused a gentile for a Jew, although I'm sure he could have misremembered that. I am saying that he could have been deliberately devious, hard as that may seem to some others.

It is common for the memory to begin to fail in the 60s. My, you are wriggling aren't you.

[Stewart P Evans]

Paranoid?

Anyone who understands anything about Ripperology will understand that they, of all Historians, actually have the right to be a little paranoid about forgeries. There has after all been more than the fair share.
I must admit I was somewhat puzzled by the Marginalia not appearing at the Docklands Exhibition
But please let me make this CLEAR. My point of disagreement yesterday with Stewart was purely on his 'Sadler' being the actual story behind the identification theory. IT DOESNT WORK.
And that Swanson and Anderson colluded to frame Kosminski...for which there is NO EVIDENCE..
I believe I am aloud to disagree in a polite and positive manor on Jack the Ripper theories, which this was..with anybody.
Yours Jeff

So now I'm paranoid? Yes, I believe that the Maybrick 'diary' is a modern fake, and yes, I believe the '17 Sept 1888' letter to be of a similar ilk. But with regard to the Swanson annotations I have an open mind, but, as I have extensively explained, I have certain reservations, or concerns, about them. Nearly all my close fellow Ripper historians agree with me on these points. But it is a free world and others may believe just whatever they wish, it doesn't really concern me.

As I have previously stated, I believe the reason for the Anderson book containing the marginalia not being on display at the Museum in Docklands display is because the New Scotland Yard Crime Museum do not loan out items from the museum and, in this case, it is the property of the donor, being on permanent loan, and they wouldn't be in a position to do so anyway. I do not know that any further tests are planned for the book, but I should welcome them if they were. How conclusive such tests might be I do not know.

Of course identification theory I have proposed 'works', unless you are trying to say that we have to stick religiously to Anderson's honesty, and all the other things that have been discussed on these threads. I know the idea doesn't suit the pro-Anderson people, but that is to be expected. Other leading people in the field have told me privately that it is a very plausible line of reasoning. And they are unbiased.

It is nonsense to speak of 'framing' Kosminski, they weren't publicly naming him at the time, he wasn't under arrest for the murders (so couldn't be 'framed' for them anyway) and he was safely and permanently tucked away on the happy farm.

Otherwise thank you for your mellifluous words.

[Jeff Leahy]

I mean too make argument TWO you need to explain why Swanson would lie..

And just another point on Anderson..I don't think its possible to make a simplistic accessment of Andersons Character (Not that I'm saying either you or Begg would do so). I cant see any evidence that he would 'lie' on the case of a serial murderer..although I except the flaws you and Nat's raise about his character. He may have made small factual errors..

But confussing 'a Gentile for a jew' and 'positive for negative' is a big jump of the imagination..he was only between 65-69 while writing his memior's..

I cant see even Anderson getting that wrong.

[Jeff Leahy]

I
1. Anderson and/or Swanson would never have lied, were beyond reproach and an identification actually took place as described by Anderson. The Polish Jew suspect was identified by a Jewish witness who immediately refused to swear to this identification.

2. No such identification actually took place although a very similar attempt took place just after the time that Aaron Kosminski was locked away for good. Thus the claim of Anderson, and by implication Swanson, was a deliberate 'modification' of events so that the police could claim that the crimes were not unsolved; or they were result of confusion and bad memory.

There really is no middle ground, you either accept the whiter than white, utterly honest view of Anderson or you accept that he was human with all the defects that come with being a mere mortal.

[ATTACH]2110[/ATTACH]

This is not quite true Stewart there are all kinds of possible and variating positions you could take...

Fore instance you could take the position that Anderson may possibly have lied and Swanson was Whiter than white..or indeed the contrary position.

My feelings are that this is all rather black and White.

I can see no reason why Swanson credebilty can be questioned..unless you claim that the marginalia is 'Fake' and Swanson never said what he said..which we are agreed 'IT IS NOT'.

So to make claim one you need to have a credible arguement why Swanson would lie?

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry if I come across as tetchy at times, I have been on the Ripper scene for around 47 years and I sometimes get quite sick of discussing the subject.

[Jeff Leahy]

Nonsense - I have been showing some of my Ripper research credentials on these threads. What, exactly, are yours? Oh, I forgot, you have read Paul Begg's book.

And of course 'Jack the Ripper, Scotland Yard Investigates' A copy of which is infront of me now and signed by none other than Stewart Evans..

A pretty damn good book it is too..