Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Herlock Sholmes 3 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by Joshua Rogan 41 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by packers stem 59 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 1 hour and 13 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (25 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (17 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > Anderson, Sir Robert

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-17-2010, 07:48 PM
Stephen Thomas Stephen Thomas is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,728
Default Like a Teddy Bear

Oh dear, round and round the Anderson garden again. FWIWIMHOLOL the case was sorted out in early 1889 before the Alice McKenzie murder so to me Anderson's 1910 statements make perfect sense and they also have nothing to do with Kosminski as far as I can see, given this and that and the other.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-17-2010, 11:39 PM
Natalie Severn Natalie Severn is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,863
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
Oh dear, round and round the Anderson garden again. FWIWIMHOLOL the case was sorted out in early 1889 before the Alice McKenzie murder so to me Anderson's 1910 statements make perfect sense and they also have nothing to do with Kosminski as far as I can see, given this and that and the other.
What do you mean by this?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-18-2010, 05:40 AM
John Malcolm John Malcolm is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Posts: 89
Default

Hello All,
This will be an attempt to address the issues of the article that have been brought up, so please bear with me...

Stewart,
First and foremost I would like to comment on your observation that "Certain phrases and ideas in the article clearly show where John derives his beliefs from - it's a pity that those sources are so biased." I'm assuming that you are referring to Paul Begg and Martin Fido here. This is partially correct, as one of the first books I read on the subject was The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper, and as is quite often the case, first impressions are lasting impressions. As you know, for the longest time I'd been very keen on David Cohen as my "suspect of choice", so this in itself seems to support your contention; and as my continuing support of Anderson also indicates a parallel to Paul Begg's non-dismissal of Anderson, putting two and two together seems logical. But I don't believe it's that simple. I'm very familiar with your position that these two authors have been less than objective, but I can't completely agree with you about this. That said, I have to put forth something that you may find hard to believe- YOU have been my biggest influence when it comes to this subject. Maybe you think this is the most ridiculous thing I've said thus far, but if this wasn't "a definitely ascertained fact" in my mind, this particular article of which we are speaking would have come out (in an even more venomous form) several years ago. You rightly pointed out my "Beggian slant" in '05 when my little book came out, which was something that I had not previously recognised. It convinced me to re-evaluate all of my "pro-Anderson" leanings and has caused me no little grief in the meantime. I'm sure that you have no idea how tedious plowing through Anderson's non-secular works can be. I know you don't believe there is any relevance to his character or the Whitechapel Murders, but I feel that it is an obligatory task, if one truly wants to get closer to the bottom of our enigmatic ex-Assistant Commissioner (but of course that's another story). And you are absolutely correct in stating that the stand I am taking is "actually fired by frustration." Frustration not borne out of some desire to be proved right in any of my opinions, but frustration because I cannot reconcile my positions with the person who has gone more out of his way to help me in my "quest for Jack the Ripper" than anyone. Maybe I'm falling short of explaining myself here, but to say the crafting of this article has been torturous, unpleasant and conflicting might be an understatement. A "turd", a "hairball", whatever my current choice of words to characterize this thing might be, one thing that I tried to make perfectly clear is that my thoughts on Anderson and his "theory" or theory are pure opinion. The "tone" of the article notwithstanding, how can you possibly characterize my words as a "rhetorical attack on Sugden rather than a sober and thought-provoking critique", and not apply the same to Sugden's "rhetorical attack" on Anderson? I think the issues I raise are valid, and as hugely influential as The Complete History of Jack the Ripper has been and continues to be, I think his chapter on Kosminski is an oozing pimple on an otherwise stellar contribution to the field of Ripperology. I think I need to take a breath before I continue, I apologize for not getting to the nitty-gritty of your comments, but I think it's best if I come back later, fresh, before I go off the rails.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-18-2010, 09:45 AM
Stewart P Evans Stewart P Evans is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,994
Default Treatment

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Malcolm View Post
...
The "tone" of the article notwithstanding, how can you possibly characterize my words as a "rhetorical attack on Sugden rather than a sober and thought-provoking critique", and not apply the same to Sugden's "rhetorical attack" on Anderson? I think the issues I raise are valid, and as hugely influential as The Complete History of Jack the Ripper has been and continues to be, I think his chapter on Kosminski is an oozing pimple on an otherwise stellar contribution to the field of Ripperology. I think I need to take a breath before I continue, I apologize for not getting to the nitty-gritty of your comments, but I think it's best if I come back later, fresh, before I go off the rails.
I think that I indicated that the tone of your piece resulted in it coming across as a 'rhetorical attack', which parts of it are. I also acknowledged that you make some valid points which I agree with.

As regards Philip's treatment of Anderson, well, it is not his book that I am responding to here, it is your new article. As I stated, it would be good to see you produce a definitive book on your chosen area of study and you have a very good co-author in the shape of Rob. Now that would be the best place to address Sugden's treatment of Anderson.

For my pasrt, as I have indicated I was none too happy to be accused of producing 'the dirt' on Anderson as opposed to carrying out valid research. I publish whatever I find on the man, good or bad.
__________________
SPE

Treat me gently I'm a newbie.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-18-2010, 02:32 PM
Johnr Johnr is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 385
Default Deja Vu Sir Robert Anderson....

Goodday Stephen Thomas,

I think the phrase you are looking for is "Goldfish Moment".

JOHN RUFFELS.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-19-2010, 10:25 PM
mariab mariab is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,977
Default

John Ruffels wrote to Stephen Thomas: I think the phrase you are looking for is "Goldfish Moment". Even as a newbie, I think I get it! The debate on Anderson must have been going on for the last 150 years.
I've finally managed to read Mr. Malcolm's essay, and I have to say, I found the criticisms on Philip Sudgen's Kosminsky chapter fascinating and convincing, esp. for a newbie who has only very recently acquired Sudgen WITHOUT yet having gone through the book (!!!!!) – besides the perusing of pieces and parts from it online before ordering it!
Still, I was frequently bothered by the over the top rhetoric in Mr. Malcolm's essay, and I believe that his point would have come across much better without the dramatics. (And by the way, Mr.Malcolm, the best of lucks with the icing of your ice hockey related bruises, I've got a long experience in this myself, frequently engaging in figure skating/freestyle snowboarding jumps. )
As for Anderson's supposed ethical decency and reliability, the details of his anti-Parnell campaign in The Times in 1887 are well-known, and as a consequence thereoff I would entrust the least possible faith in his claims of a “definitely ascertained fact“ pertaining to the Ripper's identity. Still, future research might clear this up.
__________________
Best regards,
Maria
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-20-2010, 11:40 PM
Stephen Thomas Stephen Thomas is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnr View Post
Goodday Stephen Thomas,

I think the phrase you are looking for is "Goldfish Moment".

JOHN RUFFELS.
Thankyou, John, for increasing my vocabulary. Actually I was p*ssed as a newt when I made that post but,to continue the watery analogy, Kominski is an overlarge red herring in this discussion and though certain people might want to have a whale of a time thinking Anderson was referring to him, they are seriously misguided.

Anderson didn't know Kosminski from his backside

John Malcolms's article was sweet and apt whatever people might say.

All the best

ps. In Libya oil is cheaper than water.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-24-2010, 01:23 AM
Johnr Johnr is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 385
Default The Dangers of Spreading A Broad Net

Hello Stephen Thomas,

I like your continuation of the water analogy.(I was not make personal aspersions of anyone there incidentally).

A motto I have coined after years of research, (and this continues your water analogy into fishing...):

"The only trouble with spreading a broad net when your research fishing is, that you will encounter so many Red Herrings it gets harder to see the Blue Sardine!" JOHN RUFFELS, 2010.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.