Jack the Ripper, The Facts

[Natalie Severn]

I am a bit surprised at your post RJ.
I want to state at the outset that I admire Paul Begg and his work very much.
However,the idea that Paul Begg does not seek to persuade us in "The Facts" that Kosminski was the ripper is disingenuous.Paul may not "intend" doing so but as the scribe, what he writes is taken at face value by many,so I will try and demonstrate what I mean.

In his summary Paul states the following: Whether or not Kosminski was Jack the Ripper is unknown and will probably always remain so,but it appears that Sir Robert Anderson and Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson believed he was.They were there and they were in a position to know.

Now that comes very close to Paul "inferring" they actually knew.

Well for a kick off, they werent the only ones there at the time who were in a position to know and in actual fact Robert Anderson was not "there at the time"-not until four of the five canonical victims had already been murdered.He returned from"sick leave [!!!] on October 4th via Paris where he had been so involved in digging up dirt on Parnell for The Times in September in the beginning of October 1888 that his feet barely touched the ground- let alone touched base!He had brought it all on himself too , having written,by his own later confession ,a tissue of lies for The Times, when working to destroy the Home Rule MP ,Charles Parnell.
Abberline was "there at the time"too, hands on ,day and night and HE didnt know who the Ripper was- he didnt have any idea and he said so .So was Major Henry Smith.Major Smith ridiculed the idea,and he ridiculed Anderson for thinking what he did about Jewish people "hiding the murderer"-and this some 20 years after the event .As Chief Commissioner of the City Police and there,in the flesh,within hours of the Mitre Square victim being discovered ,Major Smith had a very keen knowledge of and a life long interest in the case.
Sir Melville Macnaughten Assistant Commissioner was there -a little after the time - June 1889-and he preferred Druitt.Monro was there at the time -directing operations-and he never came out and endorsed any of Anderson"s or Macnaghten"s "theorising".
So the statement that because Anderson and Swanson were "there at the time" and they ought to have known is a disingenuous one because it leaves out all the others who were " there at the time"and who thought otherwise -I cant give all their names at the moment but there were quite a few and none were singing from the same song sheet------except-------those who admitted-----they did NOT know!

Best Wishes

[Sam Flynn]

Tom I dont see what your accusing Colin of here? surely he is quoting Pirate Jack.

Jeff - you're reading the amended version of Colin's post, edited by Admin. If you'd read the original, you'd have seen what Tom meant.

[rjpalmer]

My Dear Nats, I can give you an immediate reply.

I don't think we're on the same wave length.

I don't disagree with your concerns. Indeed, I share them.

If you reread my post, nowhere do I deny that Begg isn't pro-Anderson, nor that he isn't plumping for the Polish Jew.

I just think that in historical writing this is done all the time; it is taken as an unwritten 'given' that the author is offering a theory, or a position.

I think the title "The Facts" is what is setting people off. But it's not that much different than "the Simple Truth" or "The True Face of Jack the Ripper."

We wouldn't really need to imply that the writers of those books were liars if they didn't convince us would we, since we know it is a sort of literary prop?

Maybe you can help explain something to me, because I guess I'm really missing it.

Using simple philosophy or logic, what is the difference between Phil Sugden arguing against Kosminski, and Paul Begg arguing for Kosminski?

I don't mean which argument you think is better. Without getting into that, aren't they both doing the same thing, except taking different sides of the coin?

I get this sense in "Ripperology," if I can use that somewhat silly term, that it is widely viewed as utterly legitimate to argue a skeptical position (Druitt is innocent) but it is somehow tawdry and illegitimate to argue a positive one (Druitt is guilty).

From an objective point of view, is that fair? Can't a person present the historical case against Druitt, Kosmisnki, or anyone else without being accused of being somehow biased? That is, if he sets about it in a reasonable, and restrained way?

The whole concept doesn't make any sense to me, unless one is going to invoke 'innocent until proven guilty' (and even Sugden doesn't do that with his own suspect, he falls back on the Scottish "not proven.")

It's frustrating to disagree with an author. I feel I disagree with much of what Begg wrote. But nowhere am I really left with the sense that he's deceiving me, or doesn't honestly believe his points are good ones. So I'm uncomfortable with the zeal of the criticism.

The bottom line is that I don't have to agree with an author, to think he shouldn't be accused of monkeyshine.

If it makes you feel better, I have long believed that Sir Robert is leading us down the garden path. In spades.

RP

P.S. In Begg and Fido, I think 'Anderson and Swanson being there' is argued from the angle of the alleged identification of Kozminski in the Seahorse Hotel...which is a can of worms in itself. Since this allegedly happened in 1890/91, I'm not sure your objection applies.

[rjpalmer]

but it appears that Sir Robert Anderson and Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson believed he was. They were there and they were in a position to know.

Natalie - I think David Radka would have said:

"More precisely, they were there and they were in a position to think they knew."

Which is what Littlechild also said, sort of.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Why dosn't Glenn like Pauls book?...Because it dosnt fit with his theories...(ie reducing the victim count..which actually I think old fassioned).

It has nothng to do with theories at all, Jeff.
Any modern serious Ripper book should contain a DISCUSSION about the Canonical Five - not take them for granted - because that is one of those major issues that has been debated immensely for the last ten years, and in its beackwater a lot of nre research has been unvovered.
Begg's book contains none of that.
The book simply goes on telling the story, treating the Canonical victims like a fact, which it most certainly is not.

As for facts, no boook on this subject can contain only facts of the case.
We only have one book for that, that comes close to such an intention: The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook. But then again, it is not an ordinary book - it's a collection of source material.
But any other book on the subject must also contain the latest reserach issues and a discussion about them. This is what completely lacks in Begg's book. Instead he takes things and old truths for granted and never touches on their controversial aspects.

The parts of the book where he speculates has nothing to do with these issues at all. They are merely his own theories about the Anderson witness and about the suspects.

All the best

[Jeff Leahy]

I am a bit surprised at your post RJ.
I want to state at the outset that I admire Paul Begg and his work very much.
However,the idea that Paul Begg does not seek to persuade us in "The Facts" that Kosminski was the ripper is disingenuous.Paul may not "intend" doing so but as the scribe, what he writes is taken at face value by many,so I will try and demonstrate what I mean.

In his summary Paul states the following: Whether or not Kosminski was Jack the Ripper is unknown and will probably always remain so,but it appears that Sir Robert Anderson and Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson believed he was.They were there and they were in a position to know.

Now that comes very close to Paul "inferring" they actually knew.

No it does not. That is simply your Interpretation of that satement. Paul begg has nevr said Aaron Kosminsky was Jack te Ripper..he says "But the identity of Jack the Riper isnt very important. Its the story of those crimes, of the women who died, and of the society and times in which they lived that mattres and holds the enduring fascination"...

when working to destroy the Home Rule MP ,Charles Parnell.

yes I have more reason to dislike the man than anyone else who posts on casebook....

Abberline was "there at the time"too, hands on ,day and night and HE didnt know who the Ripper was- he didnt have any idea and he said so .So was Major Henry Smith.Major Smith ridiculed the idea,and he ridiculed Anderson for thinking what he did about Jewish people "hiding the murderer"-and this some 20 years after the event .As Chief Commissioner of the City Police and there,in the flesh,within hours of the Mitre Square victim being discovered ,Major Smith had a very keen knowledge of and a life long interest in the case.
Sir Melville Macnaughten Assistant Commissioner was there -a little after the time - June 1889-and he preferred Druitt.Monro was there at the time -directing operations-and he never came out and endorsed any of Anderson"s or Macnaghten"s "theorising".
So the statement that because Anderson and Swanson were "there at the time" and they ought to have known is a disingenuous one because it leaves out all the others who were " there at the time"and who thought otherwise -I cant give all their names at the moment but there were quite a few and none were singing from the same song sheet------except-------those who admitted-----they did NOT know!

Best Wishes

'one can only assume that they had good reasons for suspecting him. Perhaps more important than whether or not Aaron Kosminski was JtR is that Anderson and Swanson would have known the evidence against all the serious suspects."

Beggs claim has always been that Anderson and Swanson would have had more access to more information than we have today and that these stories should be seriously researched and considered..which people are still in the process of doing...an on going thing..

Yours Jeff Leahy/Parnell

PS Can you name one person more likely to be JtR than Kosminski Nats?

Ps PS thought of you this morning..did you listen to the broadcast, Radio 4, about the girl whos father had murdered her mother he was suffering from Schizophrenia

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff - you're reading the amended version of Colin's post, edited by Admin. If you'd read the original, you'd have seen what Tom meant.

Cheers Sam

Obviously I didnt realize this so I ow Tom an apology.Sorry.

Must dash as I've probised to take my daughter canoe'ing..

I will try and reply later Glenn

Enjopy the sun shine

Jeff

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Swanson do dount had more hands-on knowledge of the case than Anderson, since Anderson didn't return until after the Double Event, while Swanson during practically all the Ripper murders (except Kelly) had full access to and control of all the information on the case.

As for Swansons' so called 'confirmation' of Anderson's suspect: let's be a little careful here. Because what is Swanson actually saying in his marginal notes? There is every reason to believe that the original information source on the Polish Jew was Swanson himself, and what Swanson actually did in his marginal notes was correcting his old boss'es statements regarding the witness being brought in for identification.
So, is he actually confirming that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper? Not necessarily, it's possible he simply corrected and elborated on the information that Anderson gave in his book regarding this particular suspect. He's not actually confirming Anderson's claim that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, although I'm sure that many would like to read that into it.

[Jeff Leahy]

We dont know for sure either way Glenn, we can only make educated guesses based on what is known....

But in the context of this thread, Begg only discusses the maginalia possibilities he never claims Kosminski is JtR.

Must dash...

[Natalie Severn]

OK RJ, I can see where your objections lie with regards to my interpretation of your previous post. In essence I was trying to explain why I find Paul"s analysis of Anderson"s theory so difficult to accept and its not that easy to explain.I never think of Paul Begg or his work as in anyway "crooked" for heavens sake-on the contrary I believe he takes great pains to present his material in as objective and honest a way as possible.
The problem for me is that Paul accepts, with good faith,what Anderson has stated whether as a policeman,or as head of CID or simply as a man of integrity and it is this acceptance of Anderson"s "word" that I take strongest issue with.To be fair Paul does present us with the various critiques of Anderson from both then and now and this is done in a careful and well balanced way.
But in my view, we need to be very cautious in taking Robert anderson "at his word".His was a mindset of extreme inflexibility which would recognise no bounds in accomplishing its ideals and these ideals encompassed a fanatical adherence to the "Unionist Cause" in Ireland ,and resulted in a ruthless determination to destroy " Home Rule"- "peaceful road" to Irish Independence via Parliamentary Democracy. And Robert Anderson believed it needed to be crushed by any means necessary"--- and everything with it, including its leading protagonist Charles Parnell.
Moreover,he had this weird, intangible, religious belief system about the " Second Comings " of Christ, and he wrote extensively and cleverly and very convincingly,numerous texts about it.Its pretty evident too,from a brief reading of these texts,that he had created for himself a sort of happy clappy place where he could fantasise because Robert Anderson"s mental processes seem actually to have contained a lot of "wishful thinking" in his search for "The Truth"!
In some respects Robert Anderson"s mental processes,particularly concerning "The Second Coming of Christ" ,seem not to have been that far removed from those of his suspect, Aaron Kosminski ,who apparently believed he was guided by a "universal instinct" that knows the movements of all mankind".Clearly his "wishful thinking" had not reached Kosminski"s level of delusional thinking,but it seems not that many steps away to me.
So thats why I regard it as important that we dont accept Robert Anderson"s "word" as being that of a your average ,level headed, Upper Class,Chief of Police acting only with Victorian principles and moral conviction, incapable of being at fault or incapable of switching into "wishful thinking " mode in his theories about his suspect,Aaron Kosminski.Moreover his moral standards eg his defamatory letter writing to the Times about Parnell and the levels he sank to to cover these up ,show his moral standards were not always of a desirable character.It is these issues I would like Paul to address a little further or with greater critique .Otherwise what we end up with is the Chief of Police in overall charge of the Jack Ripper Case,claiming he knew with certainty who the Ripper was and Paul Begg giving credence to his belief.
So RJ this is not the same as Philip Sugden saying he thought Chapman was the best of a bad bunch.Sugden wasnt in the same posiytion at all--he is just presenting an opinion as a writer and historian.Anderson was saying ,as the man in overall charge,that he was certain.
Best Wishes
Natalie

[Jeff Leahy]

Nats

Given this weeks High Court Ruling that someone who didnt fire the bullet can be convicted of murder. When a young nurse was cault in gun fight cross fire...

Are you suggesting that if Anderson nd Kosminski were both guided by GOD.

Then casebook can official list GOD as a Jack the Ripper suspect?

Jeff

PS only joshing, a very interesting post. However surely Kosminski was Swansons suspect from the start and Anderson beleive this the most likely solution. Why else would Swanson take such interest in andersons book?

[Natalie Severn]

Well Jeff,keeping it all lighthearted and that,I have wondered whether when Anderson had his "Christian Fundamentalist " hat on ,he did think he had a "divine Revelation " from "God".Did he actually believe perhaps that "God" told him it was Kosminski?
Given the complete absence of any factual evidence to back up his claim,given that Major Henry Smith Chief Commissioner ,City Police-also -there at the time and at Mitre Square itself,as well as Abberline and others "there at the time" gave it scant, if any credence, one is bound to wonder!

But Anderson had been Swanson"s boss Jeff,and I think his copy of Anderson"s autobiography had been a gift from Anderson himself---I seem to remember it was inscribed but maybe I am wrong there----anyone know?

[Septic Blue]

Colin,

I know you're making a point by using Paul Begg's name when quoting Jeff, but that's actually against Casebook TOS policy, and whether or not Paul was playing Cirano to Jeff (which is speculation), it was still Jeff who posted, and people coming on to the thread won't know that from your post.

Please read the rules, with attention to #5.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=196

While you can address your replies to whomever you choose, do not change quotes from actual posts.

For those in the dark, with regard to my folly in Post #52 (05-23-2008, 10:12 PM), and Admin's decision to reverse my antics:

Each "Quote:", which now reads "Originally Posted by Pirate Jack", had read "Originally Posted by Paul Begg". As such, all of my commentary, in that post, was addressed to Paul Begg.

If anyone doesn't like/agree with "The Facts" then I suggest they get off their fat backside and spend eighteen months writing a book of their own to show us all how it should be done.

Either put up or shut up.

Authorship of published work is not prerequisite to the leveling of criticism, toward the published work of others; just as prior experience as a head of state is not prerequisite to the leveling of criticism, toward an incumbent.

So, I suggest that you shut up !!!

If you wish to take issue with the specific points that I have addressed, then be my guest. But don't try telling me that Begg's work is off limits: It's not !!! Especially in light of his feeble attempt to push a square peg into a round hole, in order to circumvent one of the difficult questions that must be asked of the so-called Swanson Marginalia.

In his book, "Jack the Ripper: The Facts", Begg has stated as an absolute matter of fact, that Mile End Old Town Workhouse had become "Stepney Workhouse", by 1910. It hadn't !!! And, it never did !!! Excepting possibly, by way of some sort of vernacular reference, that Swanson himself might have used.

Begg has responded to my criticisms, by waffling around an issue that goes beyond his understanding of the political geography of Victorian London. In so doing, he has insisted that the possibility that Swanson simply referred colloquially to Mile End Old Town Workhouse as "Stepney Workhouse", has been his line of reasoning from the onset. It has been mine: Not his !!!

From: "Jack the Ripper: The Facts", by Paul Begg
pg. 378: "... the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so, when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse."

"was": Begg's emphasis

That's "was Stepney Workhouse"; with no semblance of any qualifier !!!

That The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town came to be situated within The Metropolitan Borough of Stepney is correct. But that barely scratches the surface of the hamlet's 1,000-year history as a component of all things "Stepney"; and provides Begg a rudimentary schoolboy solution to one of the glaring inconsistencies between the purported assertions of Donald Swanson and the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski.

I will be addressing this issue further, on the "Stepney Workhouse" thread: Particularly with regard to comments made during "Rippercast", Episode 15; "Paul Begg: A to Z", May 25, 2008.

It would appear that the establishment of The Metropolitan Borough of Stepney in 1900, has provided a convenient explanation for one of the inconsistencies between the purported assertions of Donald Swanson and the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski.

However, we must avoid the temptation to push square pegs into round holes, when attempting to rationalize the obvious shortcomings of the so-called Swanson Marginalia.

The Bottom Line: With the possible exception of some sort of vernacular (perhaps used by Swanson), Mile End Old Town Workhouse was never known as "Stepney Workhouse".

Click the above quote-prompt (white arrow) to go directly to that thread.

I hope to have my comments posted sometime later today, or early this evening.


Colin

[Jeff Leahy]

For those in the dark, with regard to my folly in Post #52 (05-23-2008, 10:12 PM), and Admin's decision to reverse my antics:

Each "Quote:", which now reads "Originally Posted by Pirate Jack", had read "Originally Posted by Paul Begg". As such, all of my commentary, in that post, was addressed to Paul Begg.



Authorship of published work is not prerequisite to the leveling of criticism, toward the published work of others; just as prior experience as a head of state is not prerequisite to the leveling of criticism, toward an incumbent.

So, I suggest that you shut up !!!

If you wish to take issue with the specific points that I have addressed, then be my guest. But don't try telling me that Begg's work is off limits: It's not !!! Especially in light of his feeble attempt to push a square peg into a round hole, in order to circumvent one of the difficult questions that must be asked of the so-called Swanson Marginalia.

In his book, "Jack the Ripper: The Facts", Begg has stated as an absolute matter of fact, that Mile End Old Town Workhouse had become "Stepney Workhouse", by 1910. It hadn't !!! And, it never did !!! Excepting possibly, by way of some sort of vernacular reference, that Swanson himself might have used.

Begg has responded to my criticisms, by waffling around an issue that goes beyond his understanding of the political geography of Victorian London. In so doing, he has insisted that the possibility that Swanson simply referred colloquially to Mile End Old Town Workhouse as "Stepney Workhouse", has been his line of reasoning from the onset. It has been mine: Not his !!!

From: "Jack the Ripper: The Facts", by Paul Begg
pg. 378: "... the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so, when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse."

"was": Begg's emphasis

That's "was Stepney Workhouse"; with no semblance of any qualifier !!!

That The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town came to be situated within The Metropolitan Borough of Stepney is correct. But that barely scratches the surface of the hamlet's 1,000-year history as a component of all things "Stepney"; and provides Begg a rudimentary schoolboy solution to one of the glaring inconsistencies between the purported assertions of Donald Swanson and the documented fate of Aaron Kosminski.

I will be addressing this issue further, on the "Stepney Workhouse" thread: Particularly with regard to comments made during "Rippercast", Episode 15; "Paul Begg: A to Z", May 25, 2008.



Click the above quote-prompt (white arrow) to go directly to that thread.

I hope to have my comments posted sometime later today, or early this evening.


Colin [ATTACH]1974[/ATTACH]

WAS SAMANTICS

[Stewart P Evans]

No

But Anderson had been Swanson"s boss Jeff,and I think his copy of Anderson"s autobiography had been a gift from Anderson himself---I seem to remember it was inscribed but maybe I am wrong there----anyone know?

Actually no Norma, Swanson's copy of Anderson's book was not a gift from Anderson, but it was inscribed from someone else. I do have notes on it somewhere, I believe it was from 'Fred'.