How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

It would help if you had some sort of clue as to what you are talking about. Your crass conduct is what resulted in these posts. I don't give a monkey's toss what you find 'out of order' and I have not mis-quoted him. I have a lot more ammunition in the locker if you are ready for it.

I'm not the one using bad language and creating hundreds of posts when one will do.

[Jeff Leahy]

Nor do I, I am addressing snide comments and derogatory remarks he has made about me in emails to other people, against which I otherwise have no redress. He gave an anonymous, bad review of the work by Nick Connell and myself in his magazine. That is public knowledge.

PARANOID NONSENSE

[Jeff Leahy]

What an absolutely idiotic response. It's pointless debating with the likes of you. I've yet to find anyone who agrees with Begg's review of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper.

IRRELEVANT

[Jeff Leahy]

You obviously do not read the available material, it's pretty obvious that many people have challenged Fido's flawed reasoning.

I think this is the fundamental problem. Paul doesn't believe that they have.

Martin Fido started writing his book with a completely open mind and that it was from his research into the police officials that he came to believe that Anderson was a reliable source.

History is about analysis – namely forming a conclusion based on an assessment of the available evidence, rather than forcing the facts to fit a preconceived idea.

Paul doesn’t believe anyone has as yet challenged Martin’s Research and conclusions.

I have know doubt that Paul has serious reasons for believing this.

Pirate

[Hunter]

As you know I adore Tom Cullen because of his leftist-driven, novelistic style. He made mistakes -- lots of them -- but he also made a case for Druitt that is essentially unsurpassed in its power [Odell called it 'bedazzling' though he did not really mean it as a compliment].

Using a Marxist dialectic, Cullen gave thematic unity to a messy mystery.

That it was practically inevitable that a deranged gentleman of the 'better classes' would kill the neglected dregs of Whitechapel and thus expose this criminal poverty beneath imperial splendor.

Hi Jonathan,

My first Ripper book was Cullen's and like you it made a big impression on me at the time ( I was 14) because his novelistic writing style was captivating. But you've hit on something that we must understand when dealing with his coming to the conclusion that Druitt was Jack the Ripper... He was a Marxist and how convenient it was for him to find a cultured symbol of near aristocracy for the Ripper instead of some low class bloke from the East End. His thematic unity to a messy mystery had a purpose other than historical research. However we as historians, interpret Macnaghten, Cullen had an agenda. I later came to realize that his book was not historical, but political and his version of the JTR saga fit nicely into the political point he was conveying... I have not seen the book in 30 years but I still remember the illustrations; the goulish fiend with a knife stalking the poverty ridden East End... and the hapless and blindfolded policeman wandering amlessly around while the "little people" derided him.... And Oh, Warren? he really raked him over the coals for obvious reasons.

As Stewart correctly pointed out about the viewing of history with bias or an agenda, I now view Cullen's writings as such, and thus approach Druitt with measured caution.

[Stewart P Evans]

Since When?

...
However the points I raised on this thread with regard to Begg’s position were FACTually correct ‘ it would appear that, as I claimed, Anderson never called a press conference’ So if I am indeed ill-informed I appear to be knocking up a fairly good batting average.
...
PS I accept the ‘lacking in social grace’ allegation I’m simply interested in getting at the truth. And Anderson it would seem is indeed a complex character.

Since when was the subject of this thread about Anderson calling a press conference? As far as I'm concerned you were out for a duck ages ago. Furthermore, don't keep inanely repeating yourself.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fact

...
As for 'Pirate', I consider him puerile, ill-informed, lacking in social grace and parasitic (in relation to Paul). There is no way I shall ever 'perform' for him and I consider any discussion about that close
I find this level of personal abuse frankly somewhat childish and disappointing in an author who I hold in such high regard.
...
Pirate

It's not personal abuse - it's fact. And many agree with me. I really don't give a fig what you think of me, I'd rather have no contact or debate with you at all.

[Stewart P Evans]

Clue

I have no wish at all to drag certain personal issues into a public forum, but let me just say that all that is ever seen here is the tip of the iceberg. I also know, and appreciate, how ill Paul Begg is, and has been, and there is no way that I would intentionally seek to aggravate his condition. And it is for this reason that I feel that I should now refrain from further adverse comment about him. On a personal level, and Ripper nonsense aside, I wish him the very best for a speedy recovery and a return to better health.
Yes this is true Paul has been very ill, which is why I find any personal attack on my dear friend, out of order. I’m certainly not going to sit back and let people take pops at him, miss-quote him and take him out of context and not speak up in his defense?
...

It would help if you had some sort of clue as to what you are talking about. Your crass conduct is what resulted in these posts. I don't give a monkey's toss what you find 'out of order' and I have not mis-quoted him. I have a lot more ammunition in the locker if you are ready for it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nor Do I...

...
I had an email exchange with him over this review and he could see nothing wrong with what he had written and dismissed my complaint. I must leave the intelligent reader of both the review and our book to decide if his review was appropriate and justified. Add to this the fact that certain emails have come to my attention in which he is less than complimentary about me, I felt rather uncomfortable.
At least he doesn’t come on a public message washing his laundry in public and calling your objectivity into question. It appears that he had the courtesy to reply to your email. I would imagine you got a frank and honest reply from a man I’ve only ever heard say good things about you and your work.
...

Nor do I, I am addressing snide comments and derogatory remarks he has made about me in emails to other people, against which I otherwise have no redress. He gave an anonymous, bad review of the work by Nick Connell and myself in his magazine. That is public knowledge.

[Stewart P Evans]

Idiotic

[B]...
The situation was exacerbated by what I considered to be an amazing attempt by Paul Begg to address criticisms of Anderson and the Kosminski theory in his article in issue 100 of Ripperologist. This was followed by an appallingly bad anonymous review of the new edition of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper by Nick Connell and myself, in Ripperologist. The review was obviously written by Paul Begg, a fact which he later confirmed.
What has this to do with anything? It is completely irrelevant. You didn’t agree with a review? Who ever does?
...

What an absolutely idiotic response. It's pointless debating with the likes of you. I've yet to find anyone who agrees with Begg's review of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper.

[Stewart P Evans]

Here We Go...

Paul Begg has known of my feelings and concerns for many years, and we have discussed them. The answer from him is that he simply sees nothing wrong in what he has written and any fault is on my part for failing to understand the position and the nature of history and its interpretation. We have seen him publicly state that the only person who has properly studied Anderson, and is thus entitled to draw a proper conclusion as to his character and nature, is Martin Fido. How can you argue with logic like that?
What has been said – and said by Martin Fido, not Paul Begg – is that Anderson would not have lied for personal kudos.
What I believe Begg is claiming is that ‘If you disagree with that assessment you need to challenge the reasoning on which Martin Fido based his conclusion.’
...

And here we go again. Please note who started this round.

How disingenuos of you. Please check your hero's books. His way around direct criticism is to quote Fido, thus he can say 'well Martin said it not I.' But Martin's pronouncement's are reproduced verbatim in Begg's books in support of his saintly status.

You obviously do not read the available material, it's pretty obvious that many people have challenged Fido's flawed reasoning.

[Jeff Leahy]

More the merry'er are you listening Martin?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Maybe you should get Martin on your DVD to explain the fuzzy logic behind his pronouncement on Anderson.

I'd be your first customer.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

So the idea of a conspiracy doesn't hold water? You should try telling that to the family of Alfred Dreyfus who in the 1890s was sentenced to life imprisonment for treason on the basis of a mistake and an ensuing government cover-up involving suppressed evidence, lies, fabricated memos and official obfuscation. Happily, in the end, the truth set him free.

Yes I know the story well. Free as a Butterfly.

Your solution is neither simple nor logical. In fact your belief that Anderson wouldn't lie about his Polish Jew suspect is downright dangerous. A man [presumably Kosminski] is being condemned to eternal damnation on the strength of no evidence whatsoever plus the opinion of Martin Fido, with the agreement of Paul Begg, as to Anderson's veracity. Thus he spake and thus shall his word be the truth. This Star Chamber justice of yours is a conspiracy within itself, so be careful where you're pointing Occam's Razor. You could do yourself a nasty injury.

Martin Fido’s accessment of Anderson's character is that he would not have lied for personal Kudos. The ‘anti Anderson camp’ (he says tongue in cheek) need to challenge the reasoning on which Martin Fido drew his conclusion. Ie From his analysis of Andersons writing and theological works.

There is obviously a lot in the available historical record which we "anti-Andersonites" have overlooked or failed to intellectualize, so as you appear to have assumed the role of Defender of the Faith perhaps you would be so good as to explain the real reason why Anderson's utter truthfulness is being so staunchly defended when there are so many examples of him being less than candid. Also, the real reason why has he been exalted to such dizzying heights of sanctity when it is clear that many of his contemporaries held him in low esteem.

Regards, Simon

Blimey you make me sound rather important ‘Defender of the faith’?

Actually the only cause I will defend is an 'independent' Ireland.

Like Jonathon I am prepared to except that Anderson got it wrong or made a mistake. It just dosn’t seem logical that he would have told such a great big whooper if he genuinely didn’t believe what he was saying was the truth.

I’m afraid that is simply gut instinct on my part and my personal opinion.

You’ll have to challenge Martin Fido not me if you wish to try and prove your case to a wider audience.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Paul Begg has known of my feelings and concerns for many years, and we have discussed them. The answer from him is that he simply sees nothing wrong in what he has written and any fault is on my part for failing to understand the position and the nature of history and its interpretation. We have seen him publicly state that the only person who has properly studied Anderson, and is thus entitled to draw a proper conclusion as to his character and nature, is Martin Fido. How can you argue with logic like that?

What has been said – and said by Martin Fido, not Paul Begg – is that Anderson would not have lied for personal kudos.

What I believe Begg is claiming is that ‘If you disagree with that assessment you need to challenge the reasoning on which Martin Fido based his conclusion.’

The situation was exacerbated by what I considered to be an amazing attempt by Paul Begg to address criticisms of Anderson and the Kosminski theory in his article in issue 100 of Ripperologist. This was followed by an appallingly bad anonymous review of the new edition of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper by Nick Connell and myself, in Ripperologist. The review was obviously written by Paul Begg, a fact which he later confirmed.

What has this to do with anything? It is completely irrelevant. You didn’t agree with a review? Who ever does?

I had an email exchange with him over this review and he could see nothing wrong with what he had written and dismissed my complaint. I must leave the intelligent reader of both the review and our book to decide if his review was appropriate and justified. Add to this the fact that certain emails have come to my attention in which he is less than complimentary about me, I felt rather uncomfortable.

At least he doesn’t come on a public message washing his laundry in public and calling your objectivity into question. It appears that he had the courtesy to reply to your email. I would imagine you got a frank and honest reply from a man I’ve only ever heard say good things about you and your work.

I have no wish at all to drag certain personal issues into a public forum, but let me just say that all that is ever seen here is the tip of the iceberg. I also know, and appreciate, how ill Paul Begg is, and has been, and there is no way that I would intentionally seek to aggravate his condition. And it is for this reason that I feel that I should now refrain from further adverse comment about him. On a personal level, and Ripper nonsense aside, I wish him the very best for a speedy recovery and a return to better health.

Yes this is true Paul has been very ill, which is why I find any personal attack on my dear friend, out of order. I’m certainly not going to sit back and let people take pops at him, miss-quote him and take him out of context and not speak up in his defense?

As for 'Pirate', I consider him puerile, ill-informed, lacking in social grace and parasitic (in relation to Paul). There is no way I shall ever 'perform' for him and I consider any discussion about that close

I find this level of personal abuse frankly somewhat childish and disappointing in an author who I hold in such high regard.

However the points I raised on this thread with regard to Begg’s position were FACTually correct ‘ it would appear that, as I claimed, Anderson never called a press conference’ So if I am indeed ill-informed I appear to be knocking up a fairly good batting average.

All the best

Pirate

PS I accept the ‘lacking in social grace’ allegation I’m simply interested in getting at the truth. And Anderson it would seem is indeed a complex character.