How Are The Mighty Fallen

[caz]

I am slowly becoming a Tom Wescott FAN! Caz please whip my bottom!

Since you ask so nicely - I'll see you now, Mr Depp.

Ah, sorry. Wrong pirate. Get in line Jeff, behind Stewart.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...Simon Wood's "track record", which is most notable for his rebuttal against Stephen Knight's theory in the 70's, his invention of the 'FM' on Kelly's wall, which unintentionally shows the Maybrick Diary to be a modern hoax, and more recently for attempting to prove that Tumblety was not a real Ripper suspect...

Well it might have done, Tom, if there had been any mention in the diary of an FM on Kelly's wall. Sadly there isn't so you've been myth-led. Excuthe the lithp.

Back to how are the mighty fallen...

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

No Caz, you have me wrong...

...So Caz, "parity of information " per suspect doesnt really figure does it .

Nats, I have absolutely no idea how any of your post (snipped in the middle) relates to my little joke about spanking, baby lotion and comfy chairs. Is there something else about Sir Robert (or Paul Begg) that we should know?

And "parity of information" didn't come from my post so why quote it back at me as if it did??

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Actually, Anderson wasn't lying.

He was raving.

I might go along with that.

Mike

[DVV]

Actually, Anderson wasn't lying.

He was raving.

Amitiés all.

[Jeff Leahy]

Your missing the point Trevor.

Norma is trying to claim that Begg has stated that Anderson would NEVER LIE.

Begg has simply NEVER claimed this.

No one is claiming he is a GOD even if some would like to pigeon hole him as a Wizard

What is being claimed, I believe, is that his work is unbalanced.

My personal opinion is that this is pile of pooh. There are few authours more concerned with balance than BEGG. And as most have agreed Anderson is a complex character in consideration.

Norma's mindless hatred of Anderson is up to her. However she has no right to make untrue and personal claims about Paul, twisting the evidence to her own ends.

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Trevor, I totally agree, Best Wishes, Norma.

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact of the matter is that none of the authors who have been mentioned in these posts know the truth as to whether Anderson lied or not, or for that matter was capable of lying.

The fact of the matter is that is that he has been proved to have lied and by credible witnesses as I have posted recently. Therefore his refeference to the Ripper must be be scrutinised carefully.

That having now been done it is clear that it is unsafe to rely on what he has written. I fail to see why all and sundry on here are arguing with each other about the various authors and what they have written about the topic.

An author is an author and not a god it should not automatically be accepted that what they have written in books or what they choose to post on here should be taken as the gospel truth.

As SPE stated the Mystery will never be solved however there have been some major breakthroughs over the past few years which have gone a long way to making the mystery much clearer to understand, and i am sure in time there will be even more new breakthroughs which may open up the mystery yet again.

It is a matter or each individual researcher to read and digest the issue or issues raised and come to their own conclusions.

[Natalie Severn]

Certainly NOT!

I think its about time Mr Begg apologised to his readers, in that case, for misleading them about the character of this well know fairy story teller!

Ps The point about honour is that even if Monro did say ,what Anderson told the world"s Press he had said , it was Anderon"s choice to call a press conference and tell everybody .Monro was hugely upset by Anderson"s extraordinary confession . It is caddish behaviour, from Robert Anderson, revealing dirty tricks and a dodgy character ! Apologise now please!

[Jeff Leahy]

Your comments do not reveal , not by any stretch of the imagination a pursuit of truth on your part , Jeff.In fact it seems to be a resistance to inquiry.

Study the chapter entitled "Kosminski" in "Jack the Ripper, The Facts" by Paul Begg .Read page 356 from the top line:

"As is clear, there is no cohesive and persuasive argument against the truth of Anderson"s story , just a jumble of doubts and objections" .

This is not factually accurate in my view and in the view of a number of others. Not only does it diminish all argument to the contrary,as being just a jumble of doubts and objections but actually it attempts to erase all valid criticism of Anderson and the many well reasoned arguments to the contrary.Moreover, It was clearly contradicted by Robert Anderson himself on April 10th 1910 ,and the pages of the House of Commons minutes, April 11th -20th 1910, where there begins to appear an abundance of evidence to show that Robert Anderson was a very dodgy character indeed.
Paul and Martin"s words are actually an apology for Robert Anderson whose lies and excuses incuded some very dishonourable behaviour such as dropping Monro in the dirt over the Times Articles of 1887 Anderson had penned 1910 as well as he himself admitting he had lied.What we have as a conclusion from both Paul and Martin Fido is a whitewash of everything he said or did by the peculiar assertion from them that as he was such a complex character, yes , he may have lied in one set of circumstances but not in another such as telling the world he had known, as a definitely ascertainable fact,who Jack the Ripper was.Humbug I say!

You can shout Humbug all you like.

I’m stating as FACT that BEGG has Never claimed Anderson was incapable of LYING.

How do I know this? Well because I asked him directly and got a direct reply.

If you choose not to agree with their assessment that’s up to you.

If you can supply proof that Anderson Lied about his ‘Definitively Ascertained Fact’ then I’m sure we’d all like to see it.

In the mean time the various commentators will continue to look at what Anderson said and draw differing conclusions as to his reliability.

At the moment what you indeed have are DOUBTS AND OBJECTIONS and NO substance.

Perhaps you would like to apologize to Mr Begg now?

PIRATE

PS BEGG: "Monro certainly denied that he had given Anderson permission to write the articles, although he admitted that he may have informally agreed that such a series of articles would be productive, and Anderson himself acknowledged that many matters such as the articles were discussed informally over dinner. So permission probably was given, or Anderson thought it had been, but informally and unofficially."

[Natalie Severn]

Yes I think it must have been Audi Quatros they were driving rather than Ford Capri’s.

But I refer you back to my post ref: 130

Paul has never claimed Anderson would NEVER lie. Only that in certain circumstance he would not.

That is why the above has ‘ the truth will probably never be known’ and sites J A Cole.

The disagreement with Begg is about ‘Balance’ not whether or not Anderson was incapable of lying.

Pirate

Your comments do not reveal , not by any stretch of the imagination a pursuit of truth on your part , Jeff.In fact it seems to be a resistance to inquiry.

Study the chapter entitled "Kosminski" in "Jack the Ripper, The Facts" by Paul Begg .Read page 356 from the top line:

"As is clear, there is no cohesive and persuasive argument against the truth of Anderson"s story , just a jumble of doubts and objections" .

This is not factually accurate in my view and in the view of a number of others. Not only does it diminish all argument to the contrary,as being just a jumble of doubts and objections but actually it attempts to erase all valid criticism of Anderson and the many well reasoned arguments to the contrary.Moreover, It was clearly contradicted by Robert Anderson himself on April 10th 1910 ,and the pages of the House of Commons minutes, April 11th -20th 1910, where there begins to appear an abundance of evidence to show that Robert Anderson was a very dodgy character indeed.
Paul and Martin"s words are actually an apology for Robert Anderson whose lies and excuses incuded some very dishonourable behaviour such as dropping Monro in the dirt over the Times Articles of 1887 Anderson had penned 1910 as well as he himself admitting he had lied.What we have as a conclusion from both Paul and Martin Fido is a whitewash of everything he said or did by the peculiar assertion from them that as he was such a complex character, yes , he may have lied in one set of circumstances but not in another such as telling the world he had known, as a definitely ascertainable fact,who Jack the Ripper was.Humbug I say!

[Jeff Leahy]

Yes I think it must have been Audi Quatros they were driving rather than Ford Capri’s.

But I refer you back to my post ref: 130

Paul has never claimed Anderson would NEVER lie. Only that in certain circumstance he would not.

That is why the above has ‘ the truth will probably never be known’ and sites J A Cole.

The disagreement with Begg is about ‘Balance’ not whether or not Anderson was incapable of lying.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Oddly

Oddly enough it is the A-Z that identifies the probable reason for the comment about Anderson being asked to retire in the Home Office memo that started this thread -
[ATTACH]8817[/ATTACH]
It would seem that he was considered no longer suitable for the task in hand.

Oddly this important reference to Anderson was omitted from the latest (1996) edition of the A-Z.

[Stewart P Evans]

A-Z

...
Pirate
PS Norma, you are out of order! Begg has never said Anderson would NOT lie! you know this but continue with your false claim. Either provide proof or apologuize. I'm NOT going to let this one go! so we have a long week ahead of us!
Pirate

From the A-Z by Messrs Begg, Fido and Skinner -



Note - "There therefore seems to be no hard reason for thinking that Anderson was a liar..." ergo 'he would not lie'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oddly Enough

Oddly enough it is the A-Z that identifies the probable reason for the comment about Anderson being asked to retire in the Home Office memo that started this thread -



It would seem that he was considered no longer suitable for the task in hand.