Aaron or not

[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.

[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.

[Jeff Leahy]

So now I'm paranoid?

No a clearly said you have the right to be paraniod

[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..

[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]

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

[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.

[Septic Blue]

"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

[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!"

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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