How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Stewart P Evans]

Understand?

Hardly surprising.
In Anderson's job he would have made many enemies. Enemies who were in positions of power and influence. Journalists, politicians and civil servants being three examples.
Some of the criticisms of Anderson would be justified, others the result of political differences or empire building from various state officials.
Its a bit like patting yourselves on the back for finding disparaging material on Dick Cheney, Winston Churchill or Gerry Adams.

Do you not understand anything that you read? The point about political agendas and adversaries have always been taken into consideration and assessed.

But you are missing the point. Most of the quoted finds are written or stated by Anderson himself and are by no means derogatory to him. The point I was making was that some of the biggest critics of people perceived as being anti-Anderson are those who have done little or no research themselves. Indeed supporters of Anderson have extensively used the material we have found ever since we published it. So your cr*p about back patting is irrelevant and a nonsense.

[harry]

Three articles from an overseas paper.
Mister Isaac R Miller of Lucea,is rather pleased at finding,according to Sir Robert Anderson and Mr W Hoste BA,whose names are unknown to science,that as"Regards the Gladstone-Huxley controversy",Mr Huxley was beaten,and quotes Sir Robert as saying,"Mr Huxley was met and routed upon the ground of his own choosing".

Acrimonious debate in House of Lords.
Parnell case revisited.
Motion to stop pension of Sir Robert Anderson.

Report of a Sir Robert Anderson,former Mayor of Belfast,elected to the Ulster Parliament.

[jason_c]

Do you not understand anything that you read? The point about political agendas and adversaries have always been taken into consideration and assessed.

But you are missing the point. Most of the quoted finds are written or stated by Anderson himself and are by no means derogatory to him. The point I was making was that some of the biggest critics of people perceived as being anti-Anderson are those who have done little or no research themselves. Indeed supporters of Anderson have extensively used the material we have found ever since we published it. So your cr*p about back patting is irrelevant and a nonsense.

Considered and assessed by some. Simon and others seem to take them at face value. Note the drool induced heading of this thread.

[Stewart P Evans]

'Drool Induced'

Considered and assessed by some. Simon and others seem to take them at face value. Note the drool induced heading of this thread.

It seems to me that several Anderson apologists appear to take it very personally when their 'hero' is perceived as being slighted in any way.

I agree that the title of this thread is somewhat tendentious but I should hardly call it 'drool induced' and I am sure that any intelligent reader is quite capable of interpreting the information that has been provided in an objective manner. If the information is correct, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, it is new and as such should be added to our store of knowledge on Anderson (pending confirmation of the source which sounds like Home Office letters). And I would agree with an earlier post that it is not necessarily derogatory to Anderson who may well have already been considering retiring. Starting a new regime with a new department head does not necessarily indicate any real fault in the retiring person.

The problem is that so many people in this field of research, myself included at times, find it very difficult to remain objective and unbiased in all that they write. However, I stand to be judged by what I write and I hope that in the main I do remain objective and, I think, I am able to defend and support what I do write with factual references.

Looking at why certain writers take perceived criticism of Anderson so personally is another matter. It appears that some have so much previous thinking, writing, and theorising founded and invested in Anderson's claims that they feel their own reputations will stand or fall on what they have published, be it on message boards, in articles or in books. Thus any perceived 'attack' on Anderson is an 'attack' on themselves. But there is much more to it than this.

Since 1987 a few high profile writers and 'Ripperologists' have based their 'best thinking' on this case on Anderson and his Polish Jew theory. There is not much wrong with that as he was head of the CID, and is thus important and relevant, and the Polish Jew theory is not some conjured up fantasy such as the Royals and the Freemasons. What is wrong, in my opinion, is the very one-sided, selective and misleading view that has been presented of Anderson, his reliability and his accuracy. In the earlier published works several items on Anderson, although known about, were omitted from these publications as, it seems, they militated against, or weakened, the case presented. We were also given, in my opinion, an over-egged presentation of the 'best case' for the identity of the Ripper.

Over recent years further research and writing has led to a more detailed knowledge of Anderson, and his ideas, and has given those interested a better overall picture from which to draw their own conclusions. Anderson has thus been shown to be a lot less reliable source than previously assumed. This has not pleased certain Anderson supporters, some of whom believed that they almost had the case solved.

[Jonathan H]

As a response to Stewart's incisive post I would just say that the strongest argument against Anderson, and Anderson's suspect, is that there is nothing in the surviving record -- admittedly incomplete -- which shows, or even suggests, that he ever knew that Kosminski was out and about for over two years as an allegedly inactive killer.

To the contrary, Anderson's words all claim that the un-named Polish Jew suspect was 'safely caged' in 1888, or 1889 at the latest. This puts Anderson, a late primary source, into collision with an early primary source which dates Kosminski's permanent incarceration to early 1891, the same year the police were momentarily hot for Tom Sadler. The latter source, the medical records, has no bias or axe to gring about the Ripper mystery -- unlike Anderson.

Assuming Macnaghten incorrectly remembered Druitt as a middle-aged doctor [his memory perhaps fusing father and son], he does, nonetheless, correctly remember, in 1914, that his preferred suspect only came to police attention 'some years after' his suicide.

This matches all other primary sources.

By contrast, Anderson's errors of memory are much more lethal to the status of his preferred suspect, begging the question as to what he ever really knew about Kosminski, because he never explains the discrepancy of this man being at large for so long after the Kelly murder -- and harmless. His memory just eliminates the discrepancy.

I have never seen any advocate of Anderson's suspect deal squarely with this issue, they just deny there is an issue.

[Ally]

If the information is correct, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, it is new and as such should be added to our store of knowledge on Anderson (pending confirmation of the source which sounds like Home Office letters).

I am sorry Stewart but ...what? You have no reason to believe it's incorrect? An excerpt without a body, absolutely no provenance from an anonymous cannot be named "source" and you have no reason to believe there's anything incorrect about it and are just going to accept it on face value?

What possible reason is there to believe it IS correct?

[The Good Michael]

Maybe the title was prophetic and the Mighty who support unproven disparaging of Anderson, have indeed fallen.

Just a thought.

Mike

[Chris]

I'll contact you both tomorrow [Tuesday PST].

Of course I shall be happy to do anything I can that may help to shed further light on this matter when I'm next at the National Archives, but it would be good to have a little more information to go on.

[robhouse]

Anderson's words all claim that the un-named Polish Jew suspect was 'safely caged' in 1888, or 1889 at the latest.

Can you show me where "Anderson's words" claim the the Polish Jew was caged in 1888, or 1889...?

rob H

[Scott Nelson]

The only claim or "belief" that Kosminski was in an asylum earlier than 1891 comes from Macnaghten...March 1889. There is no evidence of any asylum incarceration earlier than February 1891.

[Ally]

Maybe the title was prophetic and the Mighty who support unproven disparaging of Anderson, have indeed fallen.

Just a thought.

Mike

Oh please. Hyperbolic much? Frankly anyone who thinks Anderson was a paragon of virtue and could do no wrong and his word must be implicitly trusted is cracked in the head. The idea that he was a man incapable of lying is completely false and has been demonstrably proven to be false. The worst argument on the pro-Anderson side goes something like "well yes he would have seen nothing wrong in lying in situation A but he never, ever, ever would have lied in situation B". Bullsh!t. A man who can rationalize and justify lying in one regard can rationalize and justify lying in another.

Anderson was not a paragon of virtue but that doesn't mean he was a supervillian either.

This issue, for me, is simply about the facts stated: that this unproven, unsupported statement, lacking in provenance or context is being held up as proof of something when there is no more factual basis to it currently than to the Maybrick Diary.

When there is supporting documentation and appropriate context to this carefully selected excerpt from an unnamed source then we have something to discuss, but until then, it's hardly to be taken as evidence of anything.

[The Good Michael]

Frankly anyone who thinks Anderson was a paragon of virtue and could do no wrong and his word must be implicitly trusted is cracked in the head.

Never said he was such a good egg. I don't agree with his religious bent. I just don't like all the conspiracy and cover-up stuff that seems to follow a certain group's derogation. There is a concerted effort to try and bring Anderson down to the depths of depravity in order to make a case for some sort of Fenian-related, planned murders, or something to that effect. No one should be trusted implicitly... me maybe, but no one else.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

Over The Top

Never said he was such a good egg. I don't agree with his religious bent. I just don't like all the conspiracy and cover-up stuff that seems to follow a certain group's derogation. There is a concerted effort to try and bring Anderson down to the depths of depravity in order to make a case for some sort of Fenian-related, planned murders, or something to that effect. No one should be trusted implicitly... me maybe, but no one else.
Mike

Personally speaking I am interested in only all the available information on Anderson being available to all in order that they may draw their own conclusions from it.

It's a bit over the top to state that there is 'a concerted effort to try and bring Anderson down to the depths of depravity in order to make a case...', I should like to see this statement proved with some examples of this fiendish plot.

Personally I shall reproduce anything I find out about Anderson, good or bad, and let the facts speak for themselves.

[Hunter]

Part of the problem with all of this is people with "pet" suspects trying to shoot other's "pet" suspects down and any parameters that go with them... true objectivity and anaylisis of the research found is often dismissed as a result. This has always plagued any rational study of this case. Thank God for the few that plod on with honest research that they offer freely to all of us without getting themselves involved in petty debates, or have any "agenda" of their own.

[Stewart P Evans]

At It Again

I am sorry Stewart but ...what? You have no reason to believe it's incorrect? An excerpt without a body, absolutely no provenance from an anonymous cannot be named "source" and you have no reason to believe there's anything incorrect about it and are just going to accept it on face value?
What possible reason is there to believe it IS correct?

At it again Ally?

I was aware of this information before it appeared on these boards and I did qualify what I said with the words 'pending confirmation of the source.'

Also Simon would not lie in self-interest and 'he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster...'