How Are The Mighty Fallen

[robhouse]

The comment "Kosminski was the suspect" was written in the same color pencil as the other writings on the end page AND the same color used for the majority of the margin notes on page 138. The only note written in a different color, as far as I understand, was the one note beginning "because the suspect was a Jew..." etc.

RH

[Natalie Severn]

Some very good and constructive points being made here now, chaps.

It may also be the authors' considered opinion that following their advice 'will most likely lead' to someone finally identifying the ripper, but it needn't be anyone else's opinion, considered or otherwise. Others are free to think that if it leads anywhere, it will most likely expose Anderson's claims as an utter crock. And that's what they could be doing, and far more constructively than looking for instances away from the case in hand
X

I am not quite sure what you mean here Caz, but anyway I disagree with those who appear to be saying that Martin or Paul may define both the territory upon which we may evaluate the character of Robert Anderson and the boundaries we may not cross .
Anderson"s religiosity was but one aspect of his personality.Moreover,he was only mildly interested in The Whitechapel Murderer, to judge from his 1910 autobiography,and more worryingly from my point of view at any rate, was utterly disdainful of his victims.
Anderson was also highly political,particularly when it came to keeping Ireland as a colony of the British Empire .An ultra conservative at a time when numerous people were beginning to think more about Liberalism -Winston Churchill for example went on to join the Liberal Party returning to the Conservative Party only many years later.
In fact if we restrict ourselves purely to what Anderson thought about "the case" we find that out of the 295 pages of his memoirs as a Police Chief, only 10 pages of Chapter 9 ,actually attempt to address "the case" at all-and even these are rather vague in substance.
Anyway they come under the heading , First days at Scotland Yard---The "Whitechapel Murders"----The criminal a Polish Jew --------!!!
If we then include what little we know of what Swanson thought about it we just have a few scribbled notes in the margins of the memoirs that rather tentatively suggest one or two possible "scenarios" and a slightly off the wall comment "Kosminski was the suspect" written at the back of the book ! This comment appears a bit out of synch--- on the book"s end paper ,written in a coloured pencil and in quite a different style from the more contemplative jottings earlier on- this time round in fact ,its quite a deliberate "J"accuse" ----Kosminski!
So please lets go on viewing Anderson in all his varied " dimensions"---maybe starting with his great horror of what he believed made Kosminski such an utterly loathsome creature--- so loathsome in fact that in Anderson"s eyes he was "lower than a beast" !

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Almost everything we know, or think we know, about Jack the Ripper is based on one sort of fiction or another, so when Anderson finally gurgles down the plughole he'll take a few other people with him and really clear the air. But I won't be hanging up my pinnie. Abberline is long overdue for a dusting. Likewise Monro and Patsy Warren. And then there's that witness who corroborated his own testimony. I tell ya, my spring cleaning list is almost endless.

It's only the dirt that's holding things together.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Hey Caz,

Just to get back to your statement that seems to have caused the conflagration: I agree with you 100%. If the denigration of Anderson by some people is only for the purpose of elevating a different candidate or theory, which I believe was the initial impetus for the discussion, it begins a rocky foundation for that theory or suspect. Everyone seems to agree that Anderson, by virtue of being human, was imperfect. It is the mudslinging for purposes that must come soon, that is distasteful and will cause me to ignore any theory that has Anderson as some diabolical fiend, able to slaughter innocents (or others) at his whim.

Cheers,

Mike

Thanks Mike.

I would tweak this a bit if I were writing it to express my personal opinion:

If any individual's denigration of Anderson were for the purpose of elevating their own candidate or theory (which some believe was the initial impetus for the discussion), it would probably only come back to bite them on the arse.

Everyone seems to agree that Anderson, by virtue of being human, was imperfect. It is the mudslinging by any individual who has not yet made his purposes crystal clear that saddens me, because it just seems to provoke unnecessary bad feeling and misunderstandings in general. I will continue to look at anyone's arguments on their own merit and try to ignore any mudslinging that is either ineffectual or not required (for Simon’s spring cleaning purposes for example) or appears to have nothing constructive to offer.

Hi Simon,

If your spring cleaning exercise proves successful, and Anderson’s unsupported claims finally disappear down the plughole like so much dirty bath water, what will the next project be?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Some very good and constructive points being made here now, chaps.

Of course, the very best way of proving Anderson wrong, or plain dishonest, in regard to the specific claims he made about the ripper case, is to follow the advice of the A-Z authors to the letter, and to centre research on those claims; on Swanson's apparent support for them; on Aaron Kosminski as the supposed suspect; and on the errors and contradictions that need more, not less scrutiny.

It may also be the authors' considered opinion that following their advice 'will most likely lead' to someone finally identifying the ripper, but it needn't be anyone else's opinion, considered or otherwise. Others are free to think that if it leads anywhere, it will most likely expose Anderson's claims as an utter crock. And that's what they could be doing, and far more constructively than looking for instances away from the case in hand where Anderson made a public tit of himself.

The fine line comes between advising people what to research and persuading them what to believe. So I suppose it's a case of where the individual reader sees that line being drawn in the A-Z, and whether they are likely to be intelligent enough to know when to think for themselves.

And of course, it will be fascinating to see what the new and improved A-Z has to say on the subject. If the authors thought the old ones were accurate, complete and beyond criticism they presumably wouldn't be working their balls off to produce this baby.

Love,

Caz
X

[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.

[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.

[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

[harry]

Those experts for Anderson,or those experts against him?

[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'.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.