How Are The Mighty Fallen

[The Good Michael]

Phil,

It seems as if everyone agrees that Anderson was human and therefore complex. Why don't we leave it at that? Unless there's an agenda to spring out of character denigration, what's the point? We all understand the balance thing.

Mike

[Stewart P Evans]

That's Fine

Phil,
It seems as if everyone agrees that Anderson was human and therefore complex. Why don't we leave it at that? Unless there's an agenda to spring out of character denigration, what's the point? We all understand the balance thing.
Mike

That's fine - as long as the pro-Anderson faction don't respond to any new piece of information that is presented on Anderson, but may not reflect favourably on him, with cries of 'character assassination', 'foul play', 'personal attack', 'ad hominem argument', or similar war cry.

[The Good Michael]

That's fine - as long as the pro-Anderson faction don't respond to any new piece of information that is presented on Anderson, but may not reflect favourably on him, with cries of 'character assassination', 'foul play', 'personal attack', 'ad hominem argument', or similar war cry.

Stewart,

I'm not so sure anyone is pro-Anderson. I think we're anti-anti maybe.

Thanks for keeping it real.

Mike

[Phil Carter]

That's fine - as long as the pro-Anderson faction don't respond to any new piece of information that is presented on Anderson, but may not reflect favourably on him, with cries of 'character assassination', 'foul play', 'personal attack', 'ad hominem argument', or similar war cry.

Hello Stewart, Mike,

I totally agree with the above. Like I said, I welcome all new pieces of information that give us more of an insight into Anderson. Sadly, I feel the positive things are few and far between, unless the source is a co-fanatic religionist.


best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

Hello Stewart,

That would be fine, but we rarely if ever see anyone post any "pro-Anderson" stuff posted on here. On these boards anyway, there is a heavy bias toward the anti-Anderson direction... the vast majority of the sources and quotes that are ever posted about him are negative. The end result is, in my opinion, that we do not arrive at a very balanced view of the man. Unless you think posts like Phil's are fair and balanced... or accurate, which I do not. But that sort of thinking is pretty much par for the course around here. I cannot help but thinking that the so-called anti-Anderson camp is motivated by the desire to undermine what he said about the Ripper... which means it is biased. But that is just my opinion.

Rob H

[Stewart P Evans]

Heat

Hello Stewart,
That would be fine, but we rarely if ever see anyone post any "pro-Anderson" stuff posted on here. On these boards anyway, there is a heavy bias toward the anti-Anderson direction... the vast majority of the sources and quotes that are ever posted about him are negative. The end result is, in my opinion, that we do not arrive at a very balanced view of the man. Unless you think posts like Phil's are fair and balanced... or accurate, which I do not. But that sort of thinking is pretty much par for the course around here. I cannot help but thinking that the so-called anti-Anderson camp is motivated by the desire to undermine what he said about the Ripper... which means it is biased. But that is just my opinion.
Rob H

I shall post what I want to post and what others post is up to them. I certainly shouldn't have to defend myself, and what I have posted, against the sort of comments that you have made. If you don't like the heat get out of the kitchen. If published material that is found militates against Anderson then it must speak for itself.

[Phil Carter]

Unbalanced?

Hello Rob,

Respectfully, allow me quote myself...

I welcome all new pieces of information that give us more of an insight into Anderson.

I have previously said to you in another thread that I look forward to any book that sheds new light on Kosminski, have I not?

I will catagorically state that I have no hidden agenda here. I would love to see evidence against Kosminski or another Polish Jew that is based on proof, believe me! Because I don't care who the murderer or murderers were!

The pure fact of the matter is that for far too long the Polish Jew/Kosminski theory has rested on at least one well sold and well read publication which is heavily biased towards Anderson's Polish Jew comment, MacNaghten's Memoranda and Swanson's Marginalia. Each of these parts relies upon the other to support the theory.

This has been going on for many many years. Some of the things written in Martin Fido's book, "The Crimes, Detection & Death of Jack the Ripper", for example, are pretty conclusive and very pointed. They are also heavily Pro-Anderson. Examples hereunder...

"Anderson......the obvious ..... 'best source' of information."

"Putting together the three sources of information, a picture of the major police suspect emerges. Anderson the first and most reliable"

"And the times at which City Pcs Watkins and Harvey passed Mitre Square proved, without question, that he was the man who murdered her. Jack the Ripper has been found."

I welcome ANY new information about this man. Good or bad, and I flatly deny that I haven't been fair in my writing. To bring needed balance, more and more quotes have been unearthed that DO NOT place Anderson in a favourable light. That, gives, perhaps, an inbalanced view on this thread, yes...but compare it to 22 years of Anderson's words being almost untouchable and a theory of a Polish Jew resting upon them.

I do not think that it is wrong to find more material on Anderson either. Good or bad.
There is plenty more of the negative stuff around. SADLY, I say again, very little positive, if not from co-religionists. But present some, please. I welcome it.

We have differing opinions. Thats fine. I have great respect for you, as you know. I personally, have no "named suspect" to put weight behind. I will however question those that have been mentioned. Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski included. If that means questioning Anderson's written word and his character, MacNaghten's Memoranda and Swanson's Marginalia, then so be it.

Much respect,

with best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

Phil,

I respect what you are saying. In fact, I do not put a whole lot of stock in Martin's book... I read it many years ago, before I became interested in Kozminski, and my initial reaction was that it was not very good. While I respect Martin a great deal for the work and research he has done, I think he came to a number of wrong conclusions.

In addition, I have never been one to try to say that Anderson is infallible or anything of the sort. The only reason I "defend" him at all is because I tend to think that some of the things said about him are completely over-the-top and ridiculous. Also, I do not really agree that by posting negative stuff about Anderson, we are coming to a more balanced view of the man. I am aware that the books by Fido and Begg were probably too biased toward Anderson's truthfullness etc. However, the main forum for discourse I have seen on the man is here.. on casebook. And I think that the general type of stuff posted and said about Anderson on a daily basis is quite skewed and unbalanced. So I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the man. But to be honest, I am not particularly interested in the whole debate over Anderson's character, since I think the premise of the argument is flawed... and I still think all this is motivated by a general desire to "erase" what he said about the Ripper. Which is fine...

RH

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated.

Of course I can see where you are coming from on this, and I have no problem with that. Of course you are entitled to disagree with an opinion, and it could well be said that I use direct comment which can be seen as all out attack. However, as you hopefully recognise and respect, that isn't the intention..well, at least not from my side it isn't.
I just see a long drawn out problem which clearly hasn't been resolved with any degree of balanced satisfaction. The influence of the two writer's opinions you mention above has added great weight to the issue. It has influenced many.
On this thread, I too have seen a growing regard against Anderson's viability, as could well be the case on the entire Casebook site, as you say. This may well be because of the lack of it over many years has produced those, myself included, to start to seriously examine this man, his words and his character. For he is, indeed, a central cog in a smoothly oiled machine, and it will of course be the cause for immense, sometimes intense debate. This I recognise. However, in the long run, it may be to all our benefit.
We can never erase what the man said, but we can, hopefully, put it into perspective by trying to understand the man a little better.

best wishes

Phil

[jason_c]

Hello Rob,



I welcome ANY new information about this man. Good or bad, and I flatly deny that I haven't been fair in my writing. To bring needed balance, more and more quotes have been unearthed that DO NOT place Anderson in a favourable light. That, gives, perhaps, an inbalanced view on this thread, yes...but compare it to 22 years of Anderson's words being almost untouchable and a theory of a Polish Jew resting upon them.


Much respect,

with best wishes

Phil

Phil, very few authors have viewed Anderson's word as being untouchable in the previous 22 years. A handfull of books at most. You give Fido and Begg too much influence.

[Stephen Thomas]

Oh, ok, I get it now.

Sir Robert Anderson didn't know his arse from his elbow.

Quite unlike our 21st century internet 'experts'.

[harry]

Those experts for Anderson,or those experts against him?

[Phil Carter]

Influence upon many.

Phil....You give Fido and Begg too much influence.

Hello Jason,

Respectfully, I think not. Please consider this..
When the A-Z itself came along in 1991, it was, in my and in many other people's view, a groundbreaking and brilliant idea. It was a "Bible" for all JTR enthusiasts, experts and the "general reader" alike. It also sold very well, and was, rightly so, a very popular book of reference on the subject. There are quite a number of libraries, I maintain, that have or have had a hardback copy on the shelves.

However, in that publication, certain weight was placed on Anderson's opinions, putting his theory in a very favourable light. The author's opinions were often quoted. Those opinions have influenced very many people to the present day. Two of the three authors, Messrs Begg and Fido, are of the opinion that Anderson's Polish Jew theory was the answer, as was seen through their own individual books. Therefore, no, on balance, I do not think I am placing too much weight on these two gentlemen's combined litarary efforts. I must add that I myself have great respect for them both, together with Mr. Skinner, of course.

Phil Sugden's "The Complete History" came along and was quickly recognised as a major piece by almost all of us. Then came "The Sourcebook", and it too, rightly so, is regarded as a very important piece of literature in this field. We all have great respect for these author's efforts.

The new edition of the A-Z coming soon this summer and I, like others, look forward to it. And it will, no doubt, become a central reference book for us all.

So yes, I believe that Messrs Begg and Fido have influenced very many with their work. As indeed have others with their books as well. Some positive, others not so.

best wishes

Phil

[jason_c]

Hello Jason,

Respectfully, I think not. Please consider this..
When the A-Z itself came along in 1991, it was, in my and in many other people's view, a groundbreaking and brilliant idea. It was a "Bible" for all JTR enthusiasts, experts and the "general reader" alike. It also sold very well, and was, rightly so, a very popular book of reference on the subject. There are quite a number of libraries, I maintain, that have or have had a hardback copy on the shelves.

However, in that publication, certain weight was placed on Anderson's opinions, putting his theory in a very favourable light. The author's opinions were often quoted. Those opinions have influenced very many people to the present day. Two of the three authors, Messrs Begg and Fido, are of the opinion that Anderson's Polish Jew theory was the answer, as was seen through their own individual books. Therefore, no, on balance, I do not think I am placing too much weight on these two gentlemen's combined litarary efforts. I must add that I myself have great respect for them both, together with Mr. Skinner, of course.

Phil Sugden's "The Complete History" came along and was quickly recognised as a major piece by almost all of us. Then came "The Sourcebook", and it too, rightly so, is regarded as a very important piece of literature in this field. We all have great respect for these author's efforts.

The new edition of the A-Z coming soon this summer and I, like others, look forward to it. And it will, no doubt, become a central reference book for us all.

So yes, I believe that Messrs Begg and Fido have influenced very many with their work. As indeed have others with their books as well. Some positive, others not so.

best wishes

Phil

Phil, much of the above post I can agree with. This still falls far short of Andersons word being "almost untouchable." Stewart Evans alone has written much in these years, he is far from an "untouchable" regarding Anderson. Stewart is only one author, I could name many others who take a similar line.

We could both name dozens of books that take issue with Anderson or take little notice of his opinion.

[Stewart P Evans]

Perspective

I think that there is a tendency to look at the preference for Anderson and his theory of a Polish Jew (i.e. Kosminski) from a current perspective rather than that of the time that he came into prominence.

It was a subtle change from Druitt to Kosminski as the 'top' suspect, and it took place after the 1988 centenary. Kosminski moved more prominently into the picture with the 1987 publication of the 'Swanson marginalia', Martin Fido's 1987 book The Crimes, Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper and Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper the Uncensored Facts the following year. Both were good books and very influential. Indeed Paul Begg's book was highly regarded as a reference work and a fine example of how notes and references should be used. Both leaned heavily towards Anderson and the Polish Jew theory, albeit with different conclusions.

The catalyst for the Anderson theorising was the 1991 publication of The Jack the Ripper A to Z by Messrs. Begg, Fido and Skinner. Undoubtedly a breakthrough work and a great book, it was the first real Ripper reference work and was to prove very influential (even to this day) as regards future Ripper theorising. Obviously not everyone would agree that Anderson was the best route to a solution of the case but the A to Z left us in doubt that, in their opinion, he was.

An amazing twelve pages were devoted to Anderson, Kosminski and the 'Swanson marginalia'. The authors informed us, "...the combined testimony of Anderson and Swanson weighs heavily towards the identity of the Ripper having been known..." and, "It is therefore, the authors' considered opinion that the most important area of research in the field is the pursuit of data which may help us to understand why the major documents apparently pointing to Aaron Kosminski contain errors and contradictions."

Then, finally, "Innocent or guilty, it is research centred on Aaron Kosminski, the authors believe, which will most likely lead to the identification of Jack the Ripper, if it has not done so already." These are strong and influential words in a reference work. I was certainly swayed by this and Kosminski became my preferred suspect (it had previously been Druitt). Others agreed and many took up research based on Anderson and Kosminski. This, it cannot be denied, is valid research but, in my opinion, far too much weight had been accorded to it.

Over the years, as readers and researchers became more informed, and authors like Melvin Harris opposed the theory and adopted others, the influence lessened. Perhaps, as some have suggested, it has gone too far the other way. Students of the case have to be capable of drawing their own conclusions and follow their own lines of research. All strength to those who follow the Anderson/Polish Jew theorising, it's a genuine and valid path to follow and is in no way a fantasy such as some that have been proposed.