Tweet
today was my first chance to listen to any of the podcasts and it was Martin Fido"s I listened to.
I found it very interesting and Martin presented his case very well,as one would expect.
The bit I found most compelling was where he explained the possible confusion that may have arisen between the Met and City police over names and descriptions of the suspects Kosminski/Cohen.Very plausible.
Where I found his argument weak was when discussing the Swanson Marginalia.Martin suggests that the Marginalia"s provenance is 100% certain----but the impression one receives is that his reason for this is mostly to do with him believing Swanson"s grandson to have been a jolly nice chap who would not have stooped to do anything like forging these notes.That may well be the case and indeed its probably true--- but its not by any stretch of the imagination any kind of" proof" that it was not forged.Did they ever subject the "marginalia" to forensic or scientific testing or did they judge it solely on it bearing a "close resemblance" to Swanson"s handwriting?
Martin also appeared to assert that since Swanson"s grandson only became interested in this "marginalia" at the time of the "centenary" this in some way provided further proof of of its 100% provenance......but surely this is an arguement that can cut both ways?
Regarding Robert Anderson,Martin claims with similar "certainty" that Robert Anderson could not have lied about his claim to know who the Ripper was.Its not clear how exactly Martin arrives at his conclusion since actually Robert Anderson was "PROVEN" to have lied on several counts ,one at least by his own admission in 1910,which Martin to be fair to him acknowledges.Well there can be no question that Anderson ,this Spymaster "par excellence"had lived a life of continuous and constant "duplicity" from his early days in Dublin Castle in espionage in the 1860"s----indeed you could argue that in his particular work he was "paid" to be deceitful .Its therefore very likely a man such as this, when writing his autobiography which meant going public will not be someone certain to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth- especially regarding his role ,as the most senior Police Officer of all, in charge of an investigation, into the most famous murder case in the world.He would have been extremely reluctant,in my opinion,Sir Robert Anderson, to state that he actually " hadnt had a clue".[as Abberline and Major Henry Smith had done ].
So no, Martin has not "showed" Robert Anderson NOT to have been a liar over the Ripper.
Finally,regarding the fraffiti in Goulston Street.While I was very impressed with some of Martin"s reasoning here, I still remain doubtful that this evenly lettered writing in a "neat schoolboy hand" just half an inch in height,was written by a Jewish market tradesman to prove something about the quality of workmanship of the leather goods he was selling.Such a "neat schoolboy hand" appears to be a mismatch.
But thanks Mike and all who took part,for a wonderfully interesting programme.
I found it very interesting and Martin presented his case very well,as one would expect.
The bit I found most compelling was where he explained the possible confusion that may have arisen between the Met and City police over names and descriptions of the suspects Kosminski/Cohen.Very plausible.
Where I found his argument weak was when discussing the Swanson Marginalia.Martin suggests that the Marginalia"s provenance is 100% certain----but the impression one receives is that his reason for this is mostly to do with him believing Swanson"s grandson to have been a jolly nice chap who would not have stooped to do anything like forging these notes.That may well be the case and indeed its probably true--- but its not by any stretch of the imagination any kind of" proof" that it was not forged.Did they ever subject the "marginalia" to forensic or scientific testing or did they judge it solely on it bearing a "close resemblance" to Swanson"s handwriting?
Martin also appeared to assert that since Swanson"s grandson only became interested in this "marginalia" at the time of the "centenary" this in some way provided further proof of of its 100% provenance......but surely this is an arguement that can cut both ways?
Regarding Robert Anderson,Martin claims with similar "certainty" that Robert Anderson could not have lied about his claim to know who the Ripper was.Its not clear how exactly Martin arrives at his conclusion since actually Robert Anderson was "PROVEN" to have lied on several counts ,one at least by his own admission in 1910,which Martin to be fair to him acknowledges.Well there can be no question that Anderson ,this Spymaster "par excellence"had lived a life of continuous and constant "duplicity" from his early days in Dublin Castle in espionage in the 1860"s----indeed you could argue that in his particular work he was "paid" to be deceitful .Its therefore very likely a man such as this, when writing his autobiography which meant going public will not be someone certain to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth- especially regarding his role ,as the most senior Police Officer of all, in charge of an investigation, into the most famous murder case in the world.He would have been extremely reluctant,in my opinion,Sir Robert Anderson, to state that he actually " hadnt had a clue".[as Abberline and Major Henry Smith had done ].
So no, Martin has not "showed" Robert Anderson NOT to have been a liar over the Ripper.
Finally,regarding the fraffiti in Goulston Street.While I was very impressed with some of Martin"s reasoning here, I still remain doubtful that this evenly lettered writing in a "neat schoolboy hand" just half an inch in height,was written by a Jewish market tradesman to prove something about the quality of workmanship of the leather goods he was selling.Such a "neat schoolboy hand" appears to be a mismatch.
But thanks Mike and all who took part,for a wonderfully interesting programme.
Comment