How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

Oh yeah, now I remember. On some unrelated thread you tastelessly and off-topically kept badgering SPE to appear on my podcast (like you are now doing with your film), so I asked you to stop.

JM

Excellent. Then we have agreed on the basic Facts. (Apart from the FACT that I offered a DVD release discussing Anderson.)

and also established that there are open, honest platforms for debate, should either party choose to do so.

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

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.

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.

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

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan"s version of History = death by WAFFLE!

Jonathan,

I am afraid its you who is intent on rewriting history in the form of death by waffle , with a supporting cast of senior police officers making things up as they go along!

Whose version of history are you talking about anyway ? Is it just Robert Anderson"s and Melville Macnaghten"s version of history ? Or is it that of the wider community of Jewish and Irish Immigrants of Whitechapel ? Whose version I ask you?

You seem to have lost your way in the jungles of Ripperology Jonathan.We are not dealing here with the wishful thinking of a handful of high ranking police officials, we are dealing with the murder and mutilation of at least five women in succession.What about their history" [Or as feminists now entitle it "herstory".So can we please now attend to the actual wording of the documents we possess which may yet lead us to some understanding of who killed them, rather than inventing a sub text for them that bears no relationship to what was written!

Norma

[jmenges]

[B]
Jonathon I remember suggesting that Stewart discuss an issue on podcast. I cant remember the exact details, as you say it was some time ago. However I distinctly remember you asking me NOT to make these suggestions and refrain from using ‘podacst’ in any argument. This I duely apologuized about and have refrained from doing so, out of respect to you, ever since.

Oh yeah, now I remember. On some unrelated thread you tastelessly and off-topically kept badgering SPE to appear on my podcast (like you are now doing with your film), so I asked you to stop.

JM

[Jonathan H]

Thanks for that, Stewart.

A thoughtful reply.

But we are slightly at cross-purposes because my argument was with Natalie, who I think somewhat misunderstands that history is a moving debate often with no final and absolute conclusions.

I have never thought that your work is 'counter-productive'? [unlike say Cornwall whose historical fumbling deprived us of a superb Ripper novel with a painter as the fiend!]

Years ago I used to carry 'The Lodger' everywhere I went as I was so attached to it, and enjoyed reading, and re-reading it to the point of obsession. This amused my friends who nicknamed me 'Dr T'.

Crucially that book introduced me to Sims' writings about the 'Drowned Doctor' and from that my own beliefs about the Ripper began evolving in a fresh direction towards, perhaps ironically, a 'stale' suspect.

Stewart, you [and a couple of others] have written, and co-written, books which I think elevated the Ripper subject to the level of academic study.

Your own chapter 'Did Anderson Know' is a model of historical argument because yourself and Don Rumbelow so lucidly and elegantly weigh the pros and cons of the surviving sources. Yet the pair of you also make provisional judgments based on an informed opinion.

That is why I use it with students -- right next to A J P Taylor and Niall Ferguson.

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.

Who gives a stuff if Macnaghten thought Druitt was a doctor when he was really a lawyer ..?

Actually, I do -- and so do you.

The creative approach -- which should not be done in isolation to the authenticity/veracity of a source -- is to ask what is the theme of a source; its meaning under the surface? The context which created it at all?

For example, the surface claim of the Macnaghten Report, official version, is that Druitt is not a major suspect. You have made this point before, and it is a very strong one as it is an official Scotland Yard document.

On the other hand, in this politically-driven document Macnaghten never concedes what we know from other sources; that the problem with Druitt was not a lack of proof -- or even the lack of its 'shadow'.

Rather that Druitt had been dead for years BEFORE police ever knew about him in connection with the Whitechapel murders. This was an embarrassment Mac discreetly buries in that document.

Once I realized what Macnaghten was doing, the other sources began to fall into place too.

Therefore, for me the Ripper mystery is not the identity of the fiend. Macnaghten solved that, or else he would never in a million years have accused a fellow Gentile gentleman.

The mystery inside the mystery was why knowledge of the chief suspect's identity was so limited, fragmentary, and fictitious?

In a nutshell, it is because the suicided Druitt was a too-late suspect who came to Macnaghten's attention outside normal police channels. Furthermore he was a from a Tory family, learned about by a Tory MP, whilst the Liberals were in power.

It was a potential debacle which needed not a cop, or any kind of investigator, but a smooth operator from the upper bourgoisie to avoid ridicule and ruination. Macnaghten was the right man to be at the epicenter of all this, and later to pull the strings behind crony-puppets Griffiths and Sims -- and to quash the vain, stubborn, exaggerated notions of Anderson the insufferable.

We see only the tiniest tip of this much larger iceberg, the real Jack the Ripper story, forever veiled from us.

Macnaghten's memoirs mostly concede the truth; that the police were never chasing the un-named Druitt in 1888, that he was years dead before they learned of his existence. Nor was he the subject of a definitive Home Office Report, nor was he sighted by any witness, he had never been in an asylum, and that he was the only serious 'suspect'.

That's one, always provisional, interpretation anyhow ...

[Archaic]

History

Hi Stewart; just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your post on the nature of History.
As I began reading it two more 'History' quotes sprang immediately to mind.

The classic pessimist's view, represented by: "What is History but a fable agreed upon?" (Napoleon)

And that wonderful old adage: "History has three sides... yours, mine, and the truth."

I like to believe it's that third side we students of Ripperology are all after.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Jeff Leahy]

I never clearly complained when, um, you? suggested that SPE and Begg be on a podcast togather. I don't know what you are talking about. I brought it up to both of them months or years ago and I honestly believe it was Begg who said no, citing blood pressure issues that might be affected.

Jonathon I remember suggesting that Stewart discuss an issue on podcast. I cant remember the exact details, as you say it was some time ago. However I distinctly remember you asking me NOT to make these suggestions and refrain from using ‘podacst’ in any argument. This I duely apologuized about and have refrained from doing so, out of respect to you, ever since.

This was also one of the reseaons I suggested Stewart use another ‘pulic platform’ that I am happy and able to provide. If he chooses NOT to do so, that really is up to Stewart. I clearly can’t make him participate. But by the same token it can’t be said that Paul Begg is unwilling to answer Stewarts questions about ‘Balance’ on Anderson.

There are other partencially important subjects that that edit space could be used for. This years ‘Beadle lecture’ springs to mind, and might be something people would be interested in seeing?

I have no fear of anyone competing with the podcast, stepping on my toes or whatever and never mentioned it in my post. I merely expressed my feeling that they way you were going about attempting to book your joint interview was obnoxious.

Off-topic as well, and so I will go. JM

The offer may have been made in an unfortunate manor. But I think if you go back and follow this thread you will note that it was not me that started hurling personal abuse.

All I ever stated was a simple matter of FACT. ie Paul Begg has never claimed that Anderson would ‘NOT LIE’ he has never done so. Indeed making that claim would be rather silly as most human beings are capable of lying in certain circumstance.

(And I never claimed that Stewart had made that statement I was having dispute with Natalie NOT Stewart).

It is about drawing conclusions from the historical record, which I will address later as I have a boat to take out to the pub, unfortunately not one that serves ‘Landlord’

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

History

...I think that History is a little different from that.
That there is a strong, creative element based on personal interpretation; to trying to figure out what happened -- and why?
To examine only 'facts' is not only sterile, it is counterproductive as human beings rarely leave neat facts, honest records, which you can string together to arrive at a [provisional] truth, or multiple truths.
...

This is, of course, true. But we should be very careful in making sure that the personal interpretation is based on sound and informed sources and is also not based on any personal agenda. The historical record includes contemporary source material, mainly the written word, recording remembered events preserved in an authentic form. The problem in the field of Ripper research is that much myth, fantasy and invention has attached to the subject. This dates back to the time of the murders, has continued over the years, and is still with us today. The subject is a minefield for historians, researchers and writers. Accuracy is of the greatest importance.

It has been stated that 'history is bunk' (Henry Ford) and to a degree this is true. The historical record is only as accurate and objective as those who write it. And the recorders of history, like all men, are subject to the influences of their time - religion, politics, prejudices, propaganda, etc. etc. The events of the past are interpreted and recorded by human beings with all the faults and frailties that being a mere mortal carries with it. But we are not looking at the history of mankind, we are examining a very small part of criminal and social history that centres upon the sordid and tragic events of a few weeks in late 1888.

The main primary sources in relation to the Whitechapel murders are the Metropolitan Police and Home Office files housed in the National Archives at Kew. Then there are the contemporary newspapers and other publications that recorded and interpreted events as they appeared to the Victorian observer. After this we have many books that also touch upon these events, especially the reminiscences of retired police officers and others. There are also various other records and letters that are relevant to our study.

The historicity of these sources is of prime importance. Thus an extensive knowledge of the status, veracity and character of the persons making these records is necessary in order to evaluate their accuracy and relevance. These sources are sometimes contradictory, often patently inaccurate. Robert Walpole was asked, when he was dying, what he wanted read to him. He replied, "Anything, anything but history, for that is bound to be false." A veteran of the fraught politics of of the early eighteenth century, he was well aware of the difference between actual events and the version that was presented to the public.

What hope for the Ripperologist then? For accompanying misinformation we have the spectre of myth. Some Ripper writers treat events as a whole, almost like the plot of a novel, and thus select incidents and narrate them as a connected story culminating in their chosen denouement. Ripper writers over the years have tended to compile their histories to some set agenda, selectively marshalling various events and putting them under the microscope, often conforming to some popular myth or other. From the earliest Ripper books, some declared as works of scholarship and of lasting value to future historians, there have been 'touchstone' volumes. The old epigram "History never repeats itself, but historians always repeat each other" has great relevance to Ripper writing.

I could go on and on on this theme, indeed I have written an essay on it, but that would become tedious. Personally I have to say that a great influence on me has been my lifetime work as a police officer. It has shaped my thinking, not always for the better, and I have a tendency to prefer hard facts and what I see to be actual evidence. And historians, like Jonathan, will tell you that is not what history is all about. I know that, but I feel more comfortable when I stick closer to the facts and eschew too much conjecture and speculation.

Interpretation of historical source material that is authentic and relevant is essential to the historian. But he should also be very careful to guard against personal bias and interpretation based on a preconceived idea. An example, not wishing to be over critical, is the way that Fido and Begg got their opinion of the Robert Anderson/Henry Smith relationship so badly wrong based on insufficient historical data. That relationship (Anderson/Smith that is) is worthy of an essay all of its own. But Jonathan is right and, perhaps, my own methods are, as he says, counterproductive.

[Stewart P Evans]

Feelings

...
More importantly Stewart Evan's seemed to be complaining that Paul Begg seemed unwilling to address his concerns about Sir Robert Anderson and said 'Balance' in public. What I am doing is offering a platform where he can, should he choose to do so, debate with Paul out in the open. The camera never lies.
...
I have offered Stewart a 'public' platform if he chooses to turn that down he has know further right to criticize Paul Begg who is happy to discuss said 'balance' in public with him.
Pirate

You very often come across as little more than a sh*t stirrer.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 closed.

[jmenges]

As you clearly complained before when I suggest that they talk publicly on 'podcast' I thought it better to offer a public platform that I know I can deliver and make a very good job with.

I'm not attempting to step on your toes. DVD's are far more difficult to produce and take more time and effort. I am offering the possibility as an alternative and something extra for ripper enthusiast audiences I am certainly not trying to compete with 'podcasts'.

I never clearly complained when, um, you? suggested that SPE and Begg be on a podcast togather. I don't know what you are talking about. I brought it up to both of them months or years ago and I honestly believe it was Begg who said no, citing blood pressure issues that might be affected.

I have no fear of anyone competing with the podcast, stepping on my toes or whatever and never mentioned it in my post. I merely expressed my feeling that they way you were going about attempting to book your joint interview was obnoxious.

Off-topic as well, and so I will go.

JM

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

As a "producer" of sorts myself, tho by no degree as professional as you, my tactic in getting Begg and SPE on the same discussion program was to ask once, receive a direct "no", and never ask again. Something about having personal integrity here. Reading your latest posts makes me embarrassed for you. And that you suggest you would charge money for us to view such an unlikely recorded event turns my stomach.

JM

Well thats because there is a big difference between producing a podcast and creating a DVD. A podcast has no over heads. Filming a round the table discussion would require lighting and some camera hire expense. An Ex3 costs around £150 a day.

Also releasing something on DVD has an inherent cost depending on the quantity and whether or not that DVD has a case or printed sleeve?

Then we have edit time. A fully kitted FCP HD system comes around £250 to £400 a day.

Its difficult to be precise but an hour of head to head debate might take a week to edit. Then you have graphics, titles, captions etc.

Then you have music, PRS and MCPS copyright (which I presume you don't pay) not to mention that if you did choose to put something on a commercial distribution they would expect a percentage.

Not that I was suggesting that. But DVD production is a completely different animal to radio.

I can assure you that no profit has currently been made out of conference DVD sales and any money that is will be put back into future recordings and projects to further better quality production.

Due to the specialized nature of the debate I'm proposing, its unlikely that any standard broadcaster would be interested. We are talking Niche marketing DVD's. And given some of the responce I've had to that suggestion I believe there would be a small and interested audience in such a product.

More importantly Stewart Evan's seemed to be complaining that Paul Begg seemed unwilling to address his concerns about Sir Robert Anderson and said 'Balance' in public. What I am doing is offering a platform where he can, should he choose to do so, debate with Paul out in the open. The camera never lies.

As you clearly complained before when I suggest that they talk publicly on 'podcast' I thought it better to offer a public platform that I know I can deliver and make a very good job with.

I'm not attempting to step on your toes. DVD's are far more difficult to produce and take more time and effort. I am offering the possibility as an alternative and something extra for ripper enthusiast audiences I am certainly not trying to compete with 'podcasts'.

As you are probably aware much time and effort goes into any production and if this was about money there would be much better ways of going about things and I rather resent your suggestion that it might be about money when the exact opposite is the case. Indeed my offer which is quite genuine will probably cost me money.

I have offered Stewart a 'public' platform if he chooses to turn that down he has know further right to criticize Paul Begg who is happy to discuss said 'balance' in public with him.

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

Pirate,

I wrote a past to you before. I am just checking if you saw it?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

Let's stop pussyfooting around. Somebody was lying.

Regards,Simon

Not the old conspiracy theory again? it holds no water. The simplest and most logical explanation is always the best

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

As early as 1888 there were doubts about Anderson's suitability for the post of [Junior] Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard.

Earl Spencer was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whilst Anderson was at Dublin Castle. At the same time Sir William Vernon Harcourt was Liberal Home Secretary.

In a letter to Spencer, dated 17 August[?] 1888, Harcourt wrote—

"I agree with you as to Anderson's appointment. He was worse than useless & I should think in the U-K it was impossible to find a more unfit man for the place in which [he] has been put—except perhaps the Chief [Warren] under whom he will serve." [JSPS, Harcourt, corresp., box 3, cited in Bernard Porter's 'Origins of the Vigilant State', p.229].

It makes you wonder how Anderson got the job in the first place and managed to hang onto it for just over twelve years.

And here's a quote from Raymond Blaine Fosdick, author of European Police Systems [1915].

In briefly discussing the Commissionerships of Warren and Monro he quotes Anderson's The Lighter Side of My Official Life—

"His [Monro's] predecessor had been driven out by the Home Office and he soon yielded to the same pressure . . . Godfrey Lushington's intervention and influence as Under-Secretary (of the Home Office) were generally provocative and his manner irritating . . ."

In a footnote, Fosdick observed—

"This, it must be remembered, is the testimony of a man who did not himself succeed in maintaining very friendly relations with the officials with whom he had to deal, either at the Home Office or at Scotland Yard."

In fairness, though, it should be noted that Swanson seemed to get on with Anderson. On Anderson's death he wrote to his son—

"He was able, just, firm, good and kind. We never knew an unpleasantness, though we differed sometimes, but very seldom and then over very trivial matters. I am conscious that I owe him very much and shall always feel grateful. Under him were spent the happiest of my thirty-five years’ service."

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

For the Police Review states, on Anderson's retirement, that his tenure of office was considered to be characterised by 'comfortable placidity'; his temperament was more suited to his social and religious leanings and not the CID; that he was 'hardly the man to take an active part in fighting the criminal classes of London.' And to be the head of the detectives he lacked 'the requisite kind of knowledge of the world and of men.' In fact he was 'hardly a looked-for choice' on the part of the Home Secretary to be head of the CID.

This reads to me that the officialdom finally concluded that Anderson lacked the "street smarts" to run the CID at Scotland Yard. Why it apparently took so long, I don't know.