How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

He has different information than the rest of us?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No, he proves reliable, as with the Gurney and Laid episode. But that is my opinion.

That doesn't mean that there arnt other authorities that I take great score by, Stewart included. Indeed your good self on Strides murder.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

A Lie

..
And I claim to be no expert. Until someone comes up with something more convincing however I don’t see that he lied about JtR. He may have got it wrong, yes. But I don’t by conspiracies.
...
Pirate

A lie isn't a conspiracy.

[Jeff Leahy]

There is nothing to forgive Simon. You are a gentleman Sor!

There is always going to be disagreements about ‘balance’.

Norma is making claims which she is entitled to do, but if she gets facts incorrect then old dogs like Begg are going to spot them a mile off. And that does nothing for how her arguments are perceived in general.

As you well know Begg is no ones fool on the subject.

I am generally in agreement that Anderson is indeed a complex character to consider.

And I claim to be no expert. Until someone comes up with something more convincing however I don’t see that he lied about JtR. He may have got it wrong, yes. But I don’t buy conspiracies.

Always good to read your comments however, and many thanks hopefully we shall meet one day.

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

PAUL BEGGS information is the best

He has different information than the rest of us?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Fact

...
Over the years one gets a feeling that some sources are better informed and more reliable than others.
PAUL BEGGS information is the best and why I take considerable time and care when working on a project to ask his learned opinion.
I therefore presume that if he has stated, he has the balance correct on Anderson, that as always, he is probably correct.
Pirate...

Are you stating your own opinion here, or a fact? If it is a fact please state why it is.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

You're welcome. They are important points.

You are perfectly entitled to conclude that Paul has the correct balance about Anderson, but please forgive me if I do not subscribe to that notion.

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Anderson acted in a dishonourable way

It is possible to judge from Monro"s response to Anderson the depth of outrage he felt at what Anderson had said he had said he could do .Monro would not have expected to have had Anderson running to the press to drop them both in it ,even if he had given him the go ahead years and years before over the defamation of Parnell in The Times Newspaper---which, actually , Monro emphatically denied he had done.It caused a huge storm in Parliament -so to try to divert attention from Anderson, who was a miscreant and a cad over this matter is to try to play games with the truth.

[Natalie Severn]

Anderson went with his story to the Public!That was his wrong doing

As I have stated ,Jeff, it is not about how Anderson gave his story to the
press it is about the fact that Anderson went to the press /he went PUBLIC.
Moreover it is also a fact that reporters did go in large numbers to his house, 39 Linden Gardens, in Notting Hill, immediately the story broke in Blackwoods magazine -and Anderson did give an interview to "The Morning Post" in April 1910 -which meant that every newspaper editor in the land was at liberty to use---and did! Anderson spoke at length to this journalist from the Morning Post ----moreover, contrary to what is being implied here this interview was clearly to a journalist who had been standing outside his house with lots of other journalists .
What do you think happened? That The Morning Post said, "Oh ta Mr Anderson,that is clearly all secret and confidential stuff and none of our business so we wont ever go to print on it?" Ofcourse not. They and all the other papers circulated the story for International readership---which everybody knows full well will happen----and did!

All information on above is from," Fenian Fire" by Christy Campbell.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Caz,

Yes, I would normally agree entirely ...But, he used an excuse.. "not in the interests of my old department." That Caz, is called a cop -out. That is why I dont believe a word of this man's statement about the Polish Jew. "Not in the interests" etc...indeed...

I respect the answer you gave Caz, and yes, it should be that simple..its obvious. But not with a cop-out line that accompanies the accusation. Anderson is playing games. Spymaster. Disinformation.
He is good at that.

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

Two items in the interests of clarity.

In Fenian Fire, Christy Campbell makes no mention of Anderson "holding a press conference".

Following the revelations in Blackwood magazine—

"Reporters flocked to Sir Robert's house at 39 Linden Gardens, Kensington, scene of all sorts of secretive shuttlings in the past, to doorstep the singing policeman. He gave a blustering interview to the Morning Post . . ."

Here is James Monro's full written statement, read to the House of Commons on 21st April 1910—

"In 1887 I was Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police, under the Home Office, in charge of secret work. Mr. Anderson was an agent of mine (as were others), chiefly as being a channel of information received from a man in America, who corresponded directly with him, and whose name I did not know. When 'The Times' earlier articles appeared they certainly caused a sensation in London, and everybody was talking about them. I have no doubt that Mr. Anderson and I talked about them, and I can quite imagine that I may have welcomed public interest being directed to the existence of a dangerous conspiracy. But such an expression of opinion was a very different thing from authorising an agent of mine to give information to the public. Such a course would have been opposed to all my training in a service where communication on the part of officials with the Press was carefully limited. As a matter of fact, no such authority was asked by Mr. Anderson, and none was given to him by me. When subsequently articles appeared in 'The Times,' I was unaware of the name of the author, and naturally I made no report on the subject to the Home Office. A long time afterwards Mr. Anderson informed me that he had written one or more of the articles, and I felt much annoyed. However, the evil, if such it was, was done, and nothing was to be gained by saying anything on the subject. I therefore observed silence. I may have mentioned the matter at the Home. Office in confidential talk, but as the incident had passed many months previously, and there was no object in reopening the question, I did not report it officially."

Regards,

Simon

Thank you Simon, I thought this was the case because I had the good sense to contact Paul Begg and ask his OPINION.

He said: 'Anderson never held a press conference'.

Over the years one gets a feeling that some sources are better informed and more reliable than others.

PAUL BEGGS information is the best and why I take considerable time and care when working on a project to ask his learned opinion.

I therefore presume that if he has stated, he has the balance correct on Anderson, that as always, he is probably correct.

Pirate

PS The Stripper case was 1965. Nearly 45 years ago.

[Trevor Marriott]

My old shipmate Jack

[QUOTE=Pirate Jack;130448]Not naming his suspect is hardly surprising, especially given that the case never made it to court. Remember the trouble the police had when they claimed they’d caught the Yorkshire Ripper. There are lots of examples of policeman not naming suspects. Perhaps the best known is one I’m particularly familiar with. The Stripper murders and there is still some controversy over the release of the name Mungo Ireland. Somebody clearly made a mistake letting David Seabrook near that one when they did.

The case you refered to were all current cases at the time case. Kosminski and all the associated rubbish about the seaside home etc came out in later years.

I wrote previous about police protocol and proceedures which i felt puts the suggestion about Kosminski and Anderson and Mcnagthen in the right perspective but people on here just dont want to listen they go blindly on pursuing their theories. i wil repeat it again please take notice !

If Anderson or Mcnagthen or any other senior police officer knew the identity of the ripper and if all that has been written about Kosminski or the polish jew whoever he was or is correct. Then a report of some description would have to be compiled setting out all the enquiries which had been carrried out together with the results of those enquiries. Together with the evidence to support the claim that Kosminski was the killer of at least one victim. There is no way in this world on that alone would the police close the case on JTR on the strength of that evidence.

So how can Anderson and Mcnagthen say they knew the identity of the Ripper

You would have expected at least one of the officers to go public at the time.So why didnt any of them they couldnt all have been sworn to secrecy or whatever the motive was for Anderson or Mcnagthen to keep quiet.

If the ID had taken place and police were certain Kosminski was their man and having regard to his mental status the Ripper file could have been closed marked "detected no proceedings". However with only one murder relative to the Kosminski ID thats unlikely to have happened, and in any event with such a high profile case they would have wanted it made public to gain some credibilty and recognition. It would not have been silently mothballed.

The truth is none of them had a clue end of story !

I am sorry to be blunt but some of you are wasting precious time clutching at straws and chasing your tails around due to your inablity to assess and evalute matters sensibly. You continue to muddy the waters with countless irrelelevant postings.

Stick to the basic facts dont try to search for something that isnt there.

[Stewart P Evans]

No Grasp

Because my conversation came out of a reply to Norma.
My argument was fairly specific. I said that Begg had never claimed that 'Anderson would not lie' indeed Begg has stated that he believes in certain circumstance Anderson was indeed 'capable of lying'
So I claimed that the debate was actually one about 'Balance' which the rest of your post seems to confirm.
If you don't think Begg has struck the correct 'balance' then perhaps you should take this up with him directly?
I'm certain that he would disagree with that. As I'm sure you would agree ripperology is an ever evolving case and decisions made ten years ago may have had a reason at that time that has changed over time. I have no idea of the details.
Begg has never claimed Anderson would 'NEVER LIE' indeed he believes all people are capable of lying to lesser or greater extent for various reasons both good and bad reasons.
Anderson can only be judged by various sources and each individual must draw there own conclusions as to his character based on specific reference.
No doubt that 'balance' will continue to swing in various directions as new sources are discovered. But the weight of them appears to suggest that on a very big and specific question about the 'definitively ascertain fact' would he lie? it would seem improbable.
Many thanks for bring to my attention that Anderson never named Kosminski. Do you think he was discussing somebody else?
Pirate...

You simply do not grasp certain things do you?

I shall not repeat again what has been said about Anderson and the truth. It is not a case at all of whether Anderson 'would not lie' in every given situation. It is about the claim, which Begg and Fido clearly make and sustain, that he would not lie in his scribings on the identity of the Ripper.

I, and a great number of others, do not think that Paul Begg 'has struck the correct balance' as you put it. And I have 'taken this up with him directly' but he does not think that he is at all biased or tendentious and feels that he has got it right.

You stated that Anderson had named Kosminski, I pointed out that he never did name Kosminski - please try to keep your statements accurate.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Two items in the interests of clarity.

In Fenian Fire, Christy Campbell makes no mention of Anderson "holding a press conference".

Following the revelations in Blackwood magazine—

"Reporters flocked to Sir Robert's house at 39 Linden Gardens, Kensington, scene of all sorts of secretive shuttlings in the past, to doorstep the singing policeman. He gave a blustering interview to the Morning Post . . ."

Here is James Monro's full written statement, read to the House of Commons on 21st April 1910—

"In 1887 I was Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police, under the Home Office, in charge of secret work. Mr. Anderson was an agent of mine (as were others), chiefly as being a channel of information received from a man in America, who corresponded directly with him, and whose name I did not know. When 'The Times' earlier articles appeared they certainly caused a sensation in London, and everybody was talking about them. I have no doubt that Mr. Anderson and I talked about them, and I can quite imagine that I may have welcomed public interest being directed to the existence of a dangerous conspiracy. But such an expression of opinion was a very different thing from authorising an agent of mine to give information to the public. Such a course would have been opposed to all my training in a service where communication on the part of officials with the Press was carefully limited. As a matter of fact, no such authority was asked by Mr. Anderson, and none was given to him by me. When subsequently articles appeared in 'The Times,' I was unaware of the name of the author, and naturally I made no report on the subject to the Home Office. A long time afterwards Mr. Anderson informed me that he had written one or more of the articles, and I felt much annoyed. However, the evil, if such it was, was done, and nothing was to be gained by saying anything on the subject. I therefore observed silence. I may have mentioned the matter at the Home. Office in confidential talk, but as the incident had passed many months previously, and there was no object in reopening the question, I did not report it officially."

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

...we have a man who is clearly, if one reads his writings, very sure of himself and would never have considered himself a failure about anything...

...It is my belief, (and other people's), that Anderson was not discussing anyone in particular...

...THAT is why he didn't name anyone at all. Because a name would have labelled a man as Jack the Ripper, and he would HAVE to have provided evidence of proof, of which he had none.

Hi Phil,

You sure it wasn't because he knew his suspect was still alive and his relatives could have kicked up a massive stink on his behalf?

Too obvious? Too simple? I can think of another modern parallel here, but I'm too ladylike to spell it out. (It doesn't concern any living theorist by the way.)

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Anderson can only be judged by various sources and each individual must draw there own conclusions as to his character based on specific reference....

...No doubt that 'balance' will continue to swing in various directions as new sources are discovered. But the weight of them appears to suggest that on a very big and specific question about the 'definitively ascertain fact' would he lie? it would seem improbable....

...Many thanks for bring to my attention that Anderson never named Kosminski. Do you think he was discussing somebody else?

Hello Jeff,

Respectfully.. I propose that it is not difficult for the majority of readers of Anderson's writings, listed in a posting above, to come to the conclusions about Anderson that I myself have listed above in a previous post. His religious fervour was, midly stated, pretty intense.

The balance you speak of MUST consider the whole of the man's appearance and attitude whilst in office and thereafter, and the weight of ONE comment cannot possibly counter balance the considerable Christian attitude that he had all of his life , which became alarmingly more prevelant in his writings.

At the same time, we have a man who is clearly, if one reads his writings, very sure of himself and would never have considered himself a failure about anything.

This brings me to your last point. It is my belief, (and other people's), that Anderson was not discussing anyone in particular. It is a total smokescreen, played out in order to:-

1) Feed the desire of the people and the press for an answer. (As McNaghten seemingly did via Sims) ....
2) To leave an image of his tenure as a policeman totally failure-free, in order to enhance his own reputation and ego.
3) To keep the "best interests of his old department" going.. i.e. disinformation and confusion. Spymaster deluxe.

THAT is why he didn't name anyone at all. Because a name would have labelled a man as Jack the Ripper, and he would HAVE to have provided evidence of proof, of which he had none. Just like McNaghten with Druitt or Ostrog for that matter.

So, far from the balance being tilted on believing Anderson about a Polish Jew, we have evidence that he did on occasions, throughout his career and throughout his writings, not only lie, not only take the law into his own hands, but also had a supposed moral conduct which he himself did not live up to, despite his tenacious religious beliefs and writings over many years.
That tells the everyday man one thing, and one thing only....

Anderson's words cannot be trusted. Therefore, a HUGE question mark is against this "fact" about a Polish Jew that he supports with NO EVIDENCE. That's just the way it is.

Pro-Andersonite people cannot ignore this question of his trustworthiness. The "facts" are indeed already there. The scales are already tipped decisively against Robert Anderson being an unbiased, truthful and believable commentator. This has been shown by many commentators on the subject, very clearly. It just cannot be ignored. It is a balanced appraisal of the man when reviewing his life.

respectfully, and with

best wishes

Phil