How Are The Mighty Fallen

[JSchmidt]

"Preaching water, drinking wine" seems an oddly appropriate quote at this time when it comes to Anderson. When actions contradict writing I'd go with the actions.

[Ally]

I think that we should also show some respect towards Paul Begg who may as Ally informs us have nipped in to have a look at the thread..probably out of curiosity..maybe he just doesn't feel like posting Ally.

I think people should think before posting thoughts on Mr Begg,as anxiety will not help his recovery from illness....I know the line about authors having thick skins because of having to deal with rejection etc...but just think first,please.

I will show Mr. Begg the exact same respect he has always shown to me, which is to say, none at all.

And as for his illness, he is well enough to read the boards daily and he's well enough to feed his puppet his lines.

If Begg wanted this to end, the solution is simple:
He'd stop telling Jeff what to say.

The fact that a response to one of my posts was asked for and received by Begg in under a half hour last night proves that Begg is a willful participant in this.

So he has the power to stop it completely, just cut the strings.

[Jeff Leahy]

I simply refer you back to what Paul Begg has stated. None of you are addressing the core theme of this statement:

“Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the assessment on which it was based. Historians and biographers particularly study all they can about life and times of a person they are writing about in an effort to get inside their skin, to understand them, to know what they would not have said, written or done, What ever one may feel about the vagaries of human behaviour and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting any human action, it is or should be- obvious that a conclusion based on a knowledge of the times, on study of the sources and on a though knowledge and understanding of the influence on a person- how in this case other ‘evangelical fundamentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth- can not be dismissed on nothing more than ones own life experiences accompanied by a dollop of common sence”

Until someone tackles Fido's source analysis 'The mighty havnt fallen because the foundations are still holding tight.

Pirate

[Ally]

He concluded that one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster..and (Anderson) would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force’s reputation.”

PS I havn't started anything I was ask to expand and I'm doing so.

So a whole bunch of waffling and bullsht by the puppet and his string puller, and we finally get to the only single SOLE reason or supporting fact.

Anderson was a Christian and as a Christian he wouldn't lie to increase his reputation.



Do I even have to bother to refute that absolutely idiotic "reason"? I don't think so.

[Stewart P Evans]

Some Quotes

Some quotes of Martin Fido -

On which Ripper books to recommend - "I should have to recommend my own writing." and, "I should have great difficulty in being fair as to opinions that differ from mine..."

"...Phil Sugden's book, I was disappointed that his comprehensive trawl only produced two facts that were unknown to me. That's why I was so surprised to read Paul Begg's 'The Facts' with real interest and absorption."

On his co-author, "In the past this [most of actual writing done] was because I was more experienced and fluent than Paul. Now he writes quite as well as I do, if not better..."

[Jeff Leahy]

I've clearly missed sometime.

'how in this case other ‘evangelical fundamentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth?'

Perhaps you could enlighten us on where to purchase a copy and what sources this mysterious author sites?

Pirate

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not getting involved in this hot debate. I have posted before on Anderson and stand firm with SPE in that anyhting Anderson has written should not be relied on as fact.

i also want to reiterate part of Stewart posts where he states that opinions should not be regarded by posters on here as "fact" This misconception by some posters has led to many un-neccessary arguments as posters have not been able to distinguish between fact and opinion. As an example i refer to the various senior police officers including Anderson who have given their opinions in later years.

Evidence of opinion is only admissable as evidence where it is given by an expert on a particular topic and the court is satisfied that in the interets of justice that evidence will assist the court. It usually accepted that such an expert has had at least 5 years experience on the topic. It is normal practice in a criminal case that when one side is intending to call an expert witness. The other side must be given the opportunity of calling their own expert in the same topic.

In reality if any of the merry band of suspects had ever been charged and brought to trial none of the officers statements as they currently stand would be admissable.

With one swift stroke of a pen the whole Ripper mystery could be decimated.

I dont have the time but someone should consider re writing the Ripper mystery taking out all the opinions and the suspects who have been eliminated and the victims who are clearly not victims. Wouldnt be a lot left !

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

Anderson's deep-seated views on relgion and the human race, seem to point out that it (the human race) is in dire need of salvation.

I compare this conclusion with Mr. Beggs conclusion of the "anti-Andersonites" amongst us.... as we are apparently "drowning".....

A message to Mr. Begg. I, and very many others I see around me, am/are standing on firm ground, without need for help, in no way "drowning" nor flailing about, and in no need to hold on to anything. When entering the "water".. I can assure you that we will all be wearing very capable life vests named "Conclusions upon Anderson Ltd".


That Anderson presented himself as a deeply fervent religious man, writing book after book of moral preaching upon society yet self admittedly breaks laws and also be found to lie in order to bolster his inflated ego, shows me the character of the man. His words simply cannot be trusted. Neither as a religionist, nor as a policeman.

"Not in the interests of my old department" indeed.

One wonders with what morals and guidelines he ran his old department?

Oh yes, disinformation. I remember now.

An example of a lie? You asked for it.
"A def ascertained fact"... now that is an example of a complete lie. A statement unsubstantiated and WITHOUT proof. Printed for us all to consume and believe. It was an attempt to keep his ego afloat. Anderson could never be seen to have failed. Ever.

best wishes

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

On the specific question 'would Anderson lye in a book for general consumption?' perhaps you could site?

Pirate

page 133," The Lighter side of My Official Life" by Robert Anderson published -YEAR of 1910

Chapter 1X The Criminal a Polish Jew this is in the Chapter sub -headings of Chapter 1X

page 136-"However the fact be explained ,it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the Jack the Ripper series"
-this is followed by a footnote "I am here assuming the murder of Alice M"Kenzie on the 17th July, 1889, was by another hand."[he dismisses the Mylett case too- but more of that later.]

OK--- but what about Frances Coles? Why no mention when we know, for a fact that certain of the police thought it was another JtR murder , and that Sadler was thought to have possibly been the Ripper?

And his lie " The Poplar case of December 1888, was a death from natural causes and but for the Jack the Ripper scare noone would have suggested it was a death from natural causes How could he tell such lies? He knew full well that four doctors, headed by the Surgeon in Chief, Dr MacKellar all believed it was murder as well as the jury at the Inquest.Dr Bond was the only one who thought otherwise.


page 137: from TLYOMOL
One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that .........

he was living in the immediate vicinity of the murders ........

Sir Henry Smith writing just after this in 1910 " totally refutes it with" page 147 From Constable to Commissioner": I have no more idea now where he lived [ie The Ripper ] than I had twenty years ago .....!!!

Robert Anderson TLOMOL

----- that his people knew of his guilt ,and refused to give him up to justice


-----it is a remarkable fact that PEOPLE OF THAT CLASS will not give up one of their number to Gentile Justice


"From Constable to Commissioner " by Sir Henry Smith,ex Chief Commissioner of Police , City of London :

page 160: "Sir Robert talks of the lighter side of his official life .There is nothing light here : a heavier indictment could not be framed against a class whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of the Metropolis".


Maybe we should really call Robert Anderson Mr Porkies Gallore . Everybody then seemed to know all about his Fairy Tales !

[Stewart P Evans]

Read?

On the specific question 'would Anderson lye in a book for general consumption?' perhaps you could site?
Pirate

I just did, can't you read?

[Jeff Leahy]

Fido's analysis has been challenged, has been rejected and his conclusions, which have proven wrong in the past, are not accepted.

On the specific question 'would Anderson lye in a book for general consumption?' perhaps you could site?

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Monopoly

So...self-induced male deafness resides on Casebook aswell as in reality...now there's a suprise.
...
The girls...i.e.....Norma and Ally both gave the commonsense answer to this..erm,...conundrum,as the boys see it...ages ago...
None of us knew any of the characters from 1888...nor the mood of actually being in the experience of the murders...plus the obivous..that they probably would have said or wrote anything to get out of the fact that they made a momemental mess up of the investigation..or did they?...we are talking as we see things now..not as they were in those times.It's unfair really to pick them to pieces,when they had so little to what we have now.They did what they thought was correct..they wrote,maybe to protect their reputations..they probably didn't think for one moment that in 2010 we would still be interested in the case...in the 70's there was the thought that we'd be in space-suits by now.
I think that we should also show some respect towards Paul Begg who may as Ally informs us have nipped in to have a look at the thread..probably out of curiosity..maybe he just doesn't feel like posting Ally.
I think people should think before posting thoughts on Mr Begg,as anxiety will not help his recovery from illness....I know the line about authors having thick skins because of having to deal with rejection etc...but just think first,please.

Do you think that Paul Begg has a monopoly on ill-health?

[Stewart P Evans]

Challenged

...
Because this is what a good historian does. Not that I'm suggesting by that someone else is not a good historian. Simply that Fido's source analysis must be challenged if you wish to contradict his arguments and conclusion.
Pirate

Fido's analysis has been challenged, has been rejected and his conclusions, which have proven wrong in the past, are not accepted.

[Jeff Leahy]

Whether they like it or not Begg and Fido are in the minority over Anderson, can you not see that?

Its not a question of seeing or not seeing its simply irrelevant as this is not a popularity competition.

The important question Begg is raising, as I see it is this:

“Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the accessment on which it was based. Historians and biographers particularly study all they can about life and times of a person they are writing about in an effort to get inside their skin, to understand them, to know what they would not have said, written or done, What ever one may feel about the vagaries of human behaviour and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting any human action, it is or should be- obvious that a conclusion based on a knowledge of the times, on study of the sources and on a though knowledge and understanding of the influence on a person- how in this case other ‘evangelical fundamentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth- can not be dismissed on nothing more than ones own life experiences accompanied by a dollop of common sence”

Because this is what a good historian does. Not that I'm suggesting by that someone else is not a good historian. Simply that Fido's source analysis must be challenged if you wish to contradict his arguments and conclusion.

Pirate

[anna]

Think before you post,please.

So...self-induced male deafness resides on Casebook aswell as in reality...now there's a suprise.

The girls...i.e.....Norma and Ally both gave the commonsense answer to this..erm,...conundrum,as the boys see it...ages ago...

None of us knew any of the characters from 1888...nor the mood of actually being in the experience of the murders...plus the obivous..that they probably would have said or wrote anything to get out of the fact that they made a momemental mess up of the investigation..or did they?...we are talking as we see things now..not as they were in those times.It's unfair really to pick them to pieces,when they had so little to what we have now.They did what they thought was correct..they wrote,maybe to protect their reputations..they probably didn't think for one moment that in 2010 we would still be interested in the case...in the 70's there was the thought that we'd be in space-suits by now.
I think that we should also show some respect towards Paul Begg who may as Ally informs us have nipped in to have a look at the thread..probably out of curiosity..maybe he just doesn't feel like posting Ally.

I think people should think before posting thoughts on Mr Begg,as anxiety will not help his recovery from illness....I know the line about authors having thick skins because of having to deal with rejection etc...but just think first,please.