Aaron or not

[Stewart P Evans]

Theories

Stewart, I hadnt realised it was you that had discovered the Sims article.
Just a small point. No-one would deny Anderson and Swanson were beyond reproach, whiter than white, or had human defects. Of course they did. Otherwise Swanson would not have made such glaring errors in the Marginalia. A person can be wrong AND mistakes without a sinister motive being behind them.
What does interest me is the fact that Macnaghten disagreed with Anderson. It suggests no conspiracy by Anderson in 1894 to assume credit for the police for catching the Ripper - otherwise Macnaghten would have been prevented from sending his memo and later his interview to Sims.
Its these inconsistencies that make the identification process more believable, not less.

Yes, the Sims article is mentioned in one of the letters, I passed the details to Keith Skinner and he obtained a copy of the article.

I don't think that too much should be read into the errors and what they might signify. After all the notes in the book were private and would not have been, one would presume, seen by anyone but family who might look at the book. The simple fact is, I think, that yes, by 1894 the names 'M.J. Druitt' and 'Kosminski' were noted as being of interest in connection with the Whitechapel murders. Anderson felt that 'Kosminski' sounded the best bet and that became his theory, as indicated by Griffiths in the 1895 Windsor Magazine article, and for his part Macnaghten felt that 'M. J. Druitt' best fitted his idea of the murderer. Simple as that, I think.

After all the years I have spent doing police work, listening to different senior detectives' often opposing ideas on unsolved crimes, and having many years great practical experience of identification and evidence, I feel that my reasoning best fits the bill on Anderson and Swanson. But then I would, wouldn't I? As I often state, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and theories and I shall not be browbeating anyone, nor trying to force them to accept my ideas. My only obligation to my readership is honesty. They can accept or reject my opinion as they wish.

[Jeff Leahy]

Obviously others, like 'Pirate Jack' and his mates, don't agree and I should have been gagged and kept quiet. I assume that Observer feels I should have kept my mouth shut as he says "...there is always some individual who cries forgery." I didn't cry forgery, I actually tried to give the reading public the full story and it would appear that I was, and am, wrong. Because, you see, there are some who prefer everything to be smelling sweet in the garden.

On the contrary, I applaud anyone who stands up and is counted. You have given a full account of your thoughts and reasoning and I have no problem what so ever with them, many thanks. 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 and wondered if there might be another reason for this. ie New tests? Not that I'm quite certain, having studied the Diary problem, what tests..apart from further expert 'handwriting analysis' could actually be carried out? Hand writing study, as you know, is far from being a science...although I gather the Canadians have been working on a computer program they claim can give pretty good hand writing results.

Obviously if anyone was studying the Marginalia, I'd very much like to have my camera there..that goes without saying..because I think I'd do a better job than some half baked production company that knows nothing about the subject, in documenting the process. So I keep my ears peeled and hope.

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.

I have NO personal problem with Stewart Evans. In fact I am a great admirer of his work. And most of my mates (as he phrases it) have only ever had positive and kind things to say about Stewart, on a personal level.

But please Stewart may i be aloud to take a position contrary to YOU, WITH THE CAVEAT, that there is nothing, what so ever, of a personal nature, against you, in my posts, from now on?

Indeed their is only one person on casebook that I have any personal problem with. Almost everybody else without exception, whether I agree with them or not, I enjoy their company immensely, and have a major passion in common with most of them...I'd like the truth behind the Jack the Ripper mystery..thats all.

Please can we all stay focused on what Stewart does best, the Historical Facts. You know I love you really Stewart

Yours Jeff

PS. I may be gone for a few days while my computer gets an upgrade and memory boost..it cant cope with the work load

[jason_c]

Stewart, I hadnt realised it was you that had discovered the Sims article.

Just a small point. No-one would deny Anderson and Swanson were beyond reproach, whiter than white, or had human defects. Of course they did. Otherwise Swanson would not have made such glaring errors in the Marginalia. A person can be wrong AND mistakes without a sinister motive being behind them.

What does interest me is the fact that Macnaghten disagreed with Anderson. It suggests no conspiracy by Anderson in 1894 to assume credit for the police for catching the Ripper - otherwise Macnaghten would have been prevented from sending his memo and later his interview to Sims.

Its these inconsistencies that make the identification process more believable, not less.

[Stewart P Evans]

City Police Witness

Apropos of the above piece by Sims, in 1907, it is very interesting to note that he states -"The policeman who got a glimpse of Jack in Mitre Court said, when some time afterwards he saw the Pole, that he was the height and build of the man he had seen on the night of the murder."

I am still of the opinion that the 'City policeman' witness is a simple mistake or confusion of the 'City Police witness', i.e. Lawende. After all it is a glimpse of a suspect near Mitre Square that fits Lawende. That said it is tempting to speculate that after failing to identify Sadler between 14 and 18 February 1891, the opportunity was taken to give Lawende a sight of the newly detained Aaron Kosminski to see if he recognised him. Again it would fit and seem to be the practical thing to do. And that would fit Anderson's Blackwell's claim that the identifcation attempt was made on the suspect's detention. Of course Lawende would not be happy to positively identify someone he had seen so fleetingly, so long ago, and this reluctance may have been read as a refusal to swear.

[Stewart P Evans]

George R. Sims

Natalie, i think you missed a question i asked earlier. I'll post it again.
Are you stating that no identification took place, or that an identification took place but proved nothing?
I think it was Sims that said the Polish Jew suspect was similar in height and build to the Ripper. It suggests the witness could not ID Kosminski beyoned reasonable doubt. Squaring this with Anderson's claim that the witness would not testify against a fellow Jew opens up a whole new can of worms.

I am not answering on behalf of Norma here, but just trying to clarify the situation better. There are at least two points of view here.

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.

The George R. Sims quote that you are using is to be found in an article that appeared in Lloyd's Weekly News of September 22, 1907 under the title of 'My Criminal Museum - Who was Jack the Ripper?' This piece was unknown to students of the Whitechapel murders until it was found as a result of some of Sims' letters that I purchased in 1993. The relevant part is reproduced below. Sims also qualified the information regarding the 'Polish Jew' and 'Russian doctor' suspects by saying - "Both these men were capable of the Ripper crimes, but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.
They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men."

Sims finally plumps for the third man, "a doctor who lived in a suburb about six miles from Whitechapel..." [Druitt] who had committed suicide and was his preferred suspect. Clearly he was getting his information from his friend Macnaghten.

[jason_c]

Natalie, i think you missed a question i asked earlier. I'll post it again.


Are you stating that no identification took place, or that an identification took place but proved nothing?

I think it was Sims that said the Polish Jew suspect was similar in height and build to the Ripper. It suggests the witness could not ID Kosminski beyoned reasonable doubt. Squaring this with Anderson's claim that the witness would not testify against a fellow Jew opens up a whole new can of worms.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nonsense

I'm saying that it is highly unlikely that Anderson could have made such a monumental error

And adding that the source material dosnt support your claim.

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Marginalia

Hi Stewart
You assume wrong, I do not think you should keep your mouth shut, on the contrary I have read your posts with great interest, especially the last one. But let me ask you now, what was the content of the of the old faded writing in the margin?
all the best
Observer

The marginalia that I refer to is that which has been published. Here is the photograph I took of it and it can be seen how faded it is.


Photograph copyright Stewart P Evans

[Observer]

Hi Stewart

You assume wrong, I do not think you should keep your mouth shut, on the contrary I have read your posts with great interest, especially the last one. But let me ask you now, what was the content of the of the old faded writing in the margin?

all the best

Observer

[Stewart P Evans]

Let's Get This Straight Shall We?

No problems Jeff. The marginalia does seem to be genuine, but why is it when any documents surface which could throw light on the identity of Jack the Ripper there is always some individual who cries forgery? Of course some of the documents that emerge are blatant forgeries, I don't think the Swanson marginalia fall into this catagory though.
all the Observer

Let's get this straight shall we? The 'Swanson marginalia' was first printed in a Ripper book in Paul Begg's 1988 The Uncensrored Facts. It was also covered by Martin Fido as both he and Begg majored on Anderson as the best source for deciding if the identity of the Ripper was known to the police.

I couldn't see too much wrong with that reasoning and I was happy to accept the word of Begg and Fido that the notes were beyond question and that there was absolutely nothing to question about them and the handwriting had been confirmed as Donald Swanson's 'by the Home Office Document examiner.' I went along with this and assumed that there was nothing to question. After all Begg and Fido had seen the marginalia and I hadn't and they were happy that they were 100% correct. Indeed in 1991 in the first edition of the A-Z they wrote, "Paul Harrison's suggestion that the marginalia may not be genuine is completely unfounded. Their provenance is established beyond a peradventure, and the handwriting has been confirmed as Swanson's by the Home Office document examiner."

All good stuff then, and really no reason for Paul Harrison to make such an allegation. A few years later a leading Ripperologist mentioned to me that he had never really been happy about the very convenient last line of the annotations on the rear endpaper of the book - "Kosminski was the suspect." All very neat, ties up the name of the suspect, albeit it doesn't give a first name. Also does someone writing private notes in his own book initial them 'DSS'? - perhaps he does. But no, I thought, no need to worry about it as the book had been seen by the A-Z authors and Paul Begg had stated that he had a letter from the Home Office document examiner confirming the writing as Swanson's.

And I never did question the 'marginalia' after that. However, the evidence of the Home Office document examiner had never been published (it is in the form of a letter to Paul Begg I believe) and I was staggered when I was told of the examination that had been made. Apparently a photocopy of the 'marginalia' and a photocopy of some of Swanson's handwriting from the official files had been sent to the document examiner upon which, we are told, he formed the opinion that the handwriting was Swanson's on both photocopies. As a police officer I knew that no proper handwriting examination could or would ever be made on the strength of examining photocopies - the original scripts were required.

I still didn't worry too much as I hadn't really pursued any real in-depth research into that aspect at that time. However, when writing the Ultimate Sourcebook it was decided that I should examine and photograph the actual 'marginalia'. And to this end Keith Skinner and I travelled down to the home of Jim Swanson. Jim Swanson was a gracious host and welcomed me into his apartment with an enthusiastic, "My grandfather knew who it was." I examined all the notes with a magnifying glass. I was immediately struck by the fact that the writing in the bottom margin was patently very old in appearance and written in grey pencil but with a faint purple tinge and was clearly indented. This was in stark contrast to the writing on the rear free endpaper, commencing with the words "continuing from page 138..." which was in a different pencil entirely. In fact I didn't even need the glass to see this. It was a pale grey hue, larger writing, and not impressed on the page. Obviously there are answers to these questions such as he used two dfferent pencils, there was more room to write so the writing was slightly different and there was no indentation as it was against the rear board of the book. Nothing that amounts to proof but nonetheless a bit disquieting as I had always assumed that everything was perfectly OK and matching, as these things had never been pointed out before.

But now the tally of things (though nothing conclusively damning) was mounting.

1. Paul Harrison's early allegation that the notes may not be genuine.

2. The other Ripperologist's dissatisfaction with the all too convenient, "Kosminski was the suspect." and the 'DSS' signature.

3. The examination of the notes declaring them to be in Swanson's hand but which had, apparently, not been a proper examination.

4. The definite and obvious use of two different pencils in two sets of notes, the second of which commences, "continuing from..."

5. The slightly different handwritng in the two samples.

I discussed this with various people at the time and the question was raised, of course, whether or not we should publish the above points in fairness to the reader so that it was all open and people could draw their own conclusions. I met with a negative response and there were dark murmurings of 'libel' and 'defamation' as well as being told that I couldn't and shouldn't say anything as nothing could be proved. I was happy to point out that it didn't prove anything but that the reader was being given the full facts as I had found them. In the event I lost and nothing was published. Perhaps that was the right decision - perhaps I should never have said anything. But I wasn't happy about it.

I stll cannot say that it proves fakery. The book has now been handed over to the Crime Museum at New Scotland Yard where it is still held. When they received it my points were voiced and the Yard examiner looked at the notes. I believe that his conclusion was that yes they were written with two different pencils and yes the writing on the rear endpaper was slightly different but this could be accounted for as they may have been written at a later time and the writer's age caused the difference, they were both, apparently, in the same hand.

I at least felt slightly vindicated in that something that should have been noticed in 1987 had now at least been looked at and the public, in fairness to them, had the whole picture on the 'marginalia.' Obviously others, like 'Pirate Jack' and his mates, don't agree and I should have been gagged and kept quiet. I assume that Observer feels I should have kept my mouth shut as he says "...there is always some individual who cries forgery." I didn't cry forgery, I actually tried to give the reading public the full story and it would appear that I was, and am, wrong. Because, you see, there are some who prefer everything to be smelling sweet in the garden.

[Stewart P Evans]

Memory

Old codger, brilliant spy master, cunning trixter, Anti -semite, a fool, a genious, a schzophrenic, a religious fanatic, a brilliant lawyer, a forger, a man whose memory was poor, a man whose memory was selective..
The list goes on, but its all subjecture..he said what he said: acertained Fact

The below text was written by H. L. Adam who knew Anderson personally. It speaks of the period around when Anderson wrote his memoirs. Apropos of his memory I draw your attention to the words, "His memory also apparently began to fail him, and he fell into the error of mixing cases."

[Jeff Leahy]

as you like it----one man in his time plays many parts.....

Pure shakespeare

[Natalie Severn]

Old codger, brilliant spy master, cunning trixter, Anti -semite, a fool, a genious, a schzophrenic, a religious fanatic, a brilliant lawyer, a forger, a man whose memory was poor, a man whose memory was selective..

The list goes on, but its all subjecture..he said what he said: acertained Fact

Jeff

PS. Irish home rule was a long hard struggle, the gloves were off, we won.

as you like it----one man in his time plays many parts.....

[truebluedub]

Parnell and the Fenians short clarification

Hi
Parnell had courted the Fenians for support in the late 1870's and they did back him (Freeman's Journal 11 Nov 1878). The relationship soured when the Fenians returned to violence but Parnell continued to make sure his policies appealed to them. We also know from the case of Davitt that the Fenians booted out Parnell's allies. Tynan, who was an Invincible, believed Parnell was involved with his group (429 1894 available online at internet archive http://www.archive.org/details/irish...inv00tynarich). Though he was a self-serving ranter and is not considered very reliable (Corfe 1968).
So there is a Fenian link but no where near what Anderson seems to have believed - of course if he believed Parnell was a threat to the Union he might have seen it as a moral obligation to show him as being an ally to the Fenians. Indeed Tory press believd this just look at the Times coverage.
Kind Regards,
Chris Lowe

[Jeff Leahy]

yes-thats what I am saying-I dont trust a word Anderson said.Moreover I think he could have bamboozled Swanson over all this because the Swanson marginalia and end notes are unclear---it reads as though Swanson is baffled by Anderson"s claims----just like Abberline was and Major Henry Smith.I think Major Henry Smith had Anderson weighed up really.He seems to have Anderson down as someone who saw "Jewish witnesses" and "Jewish suspects" at every turn.....well that was when Sir Robert wasnt on his hot line to Jehovah I reckon-or maybe it was when he got cracking on his hotline that he believed himself to have had this particular "revelation".

Old codger, brilliant spy master, cunning trixter, Anti -semite, a fool, a genious, a schzophrenic, a religious fanatic, a brilliant lawyer, a forger, a man whose memory was poor, a man whose memory was selective..

The list goes on, but its all subjecture..he said what he said: acertained Fact

Jeff

PS. Irish home rule was a long hard struggle, the gloves were off, we won.