How Are The Mighty Fallen

[jason_c]

Hi All,

If everybody's quite done with throwing their toys out of the pram, here's a contemporary professional opinion of Anderson.

Carl Heath: Modern Penology and the Punishment of Death

Westminster Review No. 170, September 1908, pp. 325-9—

"Sir Robert Anderson, in his book, 'Crime and Criminals', is at some pains to point out that he is dealing with crimes against property, and not with those against the person. His whole conception of crime, its cause and treatment, is vitiated by a peculiar jumble of narrow theology and social prejudice, and an absolute lack of any intelligent understanding of the social and humanitarian movement of today, which movement, I venture to assert, is, in this question of criminality, half a century ahead of Sir Robert Anderson."

Regards,

Simon

Anderson criticized once again for his social and religious views by a contemporary with differing views on the subject.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If everybody's quite done with throwing their toys out of the pram, here's a contemporary professional opinion of Anderson.

Carl Heath: Modern Penology and the Punishment of Death

Westminster Review No. 170, September 1908, pp. 325-9—

"Sir Robert Anderson, in his book, 'Crime and Criminals', is at some pains to point out that he is dealing with crimes against property, and not with those against the person. His whole conception of crime, its cause and treatment, is vitiated by a peculiar jumble of narrow theology and social prejudice, and an absolute lack of any intelligent understanding of the social and humanitarian movement of today, which movement, I venture to assert, is, in this question of criminality, half a century ahead of Sir Robert Anderson."

Regards,

Simon

You carry on reading into my posts whatever takes your fancy, because you evidently think you know something I don't.

Since Stewart has not been claiming to know the 'truth' about the ripper, or even to think he knows, and has always accepted Anderson's suspect as a legitimate one worthy of further investigation and discussion, I fail to see how you thought my comments (which so wound you up) could possibly have applied to him. They don't apply to Stewart. They didn't apply to you either. You are not the only two posters reading or contributing to this thread.

Got it now? You leapt to two false conclusions by failing to read carefully enough and misinterpreting my intentions. For your sake I hope you don't make a habit of it.

"Got it now?"

What I've "got", is that you are attempting to bullshit your way out of a corner, into which you have been forced.

Stewart Evans cited a subset of the countless trivial errors, which are to be found in Paul Begg's "The Facts", purely in response to the antagonistic and provocative insistence, of an obsequious idiot, that Mr. Begg is infallible.

You came along, and made a mockery of Stewart's chosen tactic, which you attempted to candy-coat, with one of those nauseating blue 'winks'; and then went on to assert that "unwanted ripper suspects" could not be eliminated by way of "ripping into the work of any ripper authority".

Guilty, as charged!

[caz]

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

Hi Colin,

These were my words in a post addressed to you. I wasn't accusing anyone, directly or indirectly, of trying to get rid of unwanted ripper suspects 'this way' or any other way. This parting comment was a general one, relating directly back to what I was saying in my post to Phil.

My sentence above in bold can be expanded thus:

If nobody currently criticising the work of Anderson, Swanson, Fido or Begg is doing so in the hope or expectation of eliminating the associated suspects, then that's fine, because it wouldn't work.

You thought I was putting words in your mouth and actually accusing you of having that purpose in mind.

When I explained that I was doing no such thing, you immediately switched to imagining it must be Stewart I was accusing.

Can you now see that I was accusing neither of you?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What, in God's name, are you talking about?

Likewise, Colin.

You carry on reading into my posts whatever takes your fancy, because you evidently think you know something I don't.

Since Stewart has not been claiming to know the 'truth' about the ripper, or even to think he knows, and has always accepted Anderson's suspect as a legitimate one worthy of further investigation and discussion, I fail to see how you thought my comments (which so wound you up) could possibly have applied to him. They don't apply to Stewart. They didn't apply to you either. You are not the only two posters reading or contributing to this thread.

Got it now? You leapt to two false conclusions by failing to read carefully enough and misinterpreting my intentions. For your sake I hope you don't make a habit of it.

Love,

Caz
X

Background:

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.

"PAUL BEGGS information is the best ..."

Whether 'Pirate Jack' intended for this assertion to be antagonistic, is uncertain. But it was justifiably interpreted as being just that: Antagonistic and provacative.

...
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.

You are going to have a lot to answer for laughing boy. In the past I have chosen not to mention the many errors contained in Paul's books and especially the A-Z. But I am sick to the teeth of your nonsense ...

Stewart Evans went on to point out some of the more trivial mistakes that are to be found in Paul Begg's "The Facts".

And along comes 'caz', to suggest that …

… unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way.

… as if that were ever Stewart's aim, in the first place.

.........

Current State of Affairs:

A lot of assumption there, and pretty much all of it wrong.

I do know Stewart well enough (personally and through his writing) to know that he has no such agenda as the one you suggest here, and I have never claimed otherwise. Nor have I ever compared his work unfavourably with Paul's, or Paul's work favourably with his or anyone else's. Please don't confuse me with other posters, and in future if I say I'm addressing 'anyone' who may be doing such-and-such or thinking such-and-such, that's what I mean. It won't apply to specific individuals who are not doing or thinking anything of the sort, so they have nothing to worry about - unless you come along and make an individual accusation out of it.

Get a clue!

"I do know Stewart well enough (personally and through his writing) to know that he has no such agenda as the one you suggest here, and I have never claimed otherwise."

I have no idea what you are talking about!

"Nor have I ever compared his work unfavourably with Paul's, or Paul's work favourably with his or anyone else's."

I have never suggested that you have! Period!

"Please don't confuse me with other posters, …"

I have not, in this instance, confused you with anyone else! Period!

"… and in future if I say I'm addressing 'anyone' who may be doing such-and-such or thinking such-and-such, that's what I mean. It won't apply to specific individuals who are not doing or thinking anything of the sort, so they have nothing to worry about - unless you come along and make an individual accusation out of it."

You were quite clearly suggesting that Stewart Evans was nit-picking the countless trivial errors that are to be found in "The Facts", in some sort of half-ass attempt to "get rid" ... of an "unwanted ripper suspect"! Period!

Just to make this quite clear, my 'unwanted ripper suspects' comment was referring back to this:

If the purpose is purely to put Anderson firmly in his place that’s one thing. But if anyone here is hoping to replace the Anderson-inspired ‘Jewish ripper’ theories with an equally proof-free ‘truth’ of their own (whether it involves an individual suspect, conspiracy or establishment cover-up - or even an entire group of people who simply couldn’t have produced such a killer), that would be ironic and of doubtful merit, since they would be repeating Anderson’s original sin of arrogantly claiming - or at the very least imagining - that they know something that others don’t.

My 'anyone' could hardly apply to Stewart, could it, unless you think he has been claiming a 'truth' of his own, concerning a solution to the case, which I certainly have not seen him doing anywhere.

Oh, really? ...

Your faith in the 'Landord' is touching…

…Not wishing to shake that faith, but giving an example, on what date does he say Nichols was murdered? The following from his last Ripper book -

Page 42 - "The night on which Mary Ann Nichols was to die, 30 August..."

Page 44 - "The night [of Nichol's murder], 31 August..."

Page 61 - "Anderson took charge of the CID on 1 September, the day on which Mary Ann Nichols was found murdered."

Since this is the level of debate to which we should apparently be aspiring…

I agree, this is truly unforgivable! It should of course be: [of Nichols’s murder]

Assuming it was the date error that was intended to leap from the above example, I’d just add that if a certain someone - cough - hadn't done the proofreading for a certain universally popular JtR reference work (one that gets much deserved praise heaped upon it by Martin, Stewart and Paul), Mary Kelly might well have been butchered in print on November 8. So it really can happen to the cream of today’s ripper writers.

So it really can happen to the cream of today’s ripper writers.

Can this?

"The Facts", pg. 168: "They turned back early instead of going hop picking, and reached London on the afternoon of Friday, 28 September. In London Kelly managed to earn 6d. Eddowes took 2d. and told Kelly to use the remaining 4d. to get a bed at Cooney's. Eddowes said that she would get a bed in the casual ward in Shoe Lane. In an interview given to the East London Observer, the superintendent of the casual ward said that Eddowes was well known there, but that this was the first occasion that she had stayed there for some time. Eddowes explained that she had been hopping in the country, but she said, ' "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." "Mind he doesn't murder you too," replied the superintendent jocularly. "Oh, no fear of that," was the remark made by Kate Eddowes as she left.'"

According to Kelly's inquest testimony, he and Eddowes returned to London on Thursday, 27 September, and spent that night together in the casual ward in "Shoe Lane" (City of London Union Casual Ward, Robin Hood Court, Shoe Lane, Parish of St. Andrew Holborn ('Below the Bars'), City of London). Kelly also stated that Eddowes went alone to the casual ward in "Mile End" (Mile End Old Town Casual Ward, Bancroft Road, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town), on the evening of Friday, 28 September. Indeed, it was the casual ward in "Mile End" that was mentioned by the East London Observer, in its seemingly fabled account of an exchange between Eddowes and the casual ward superintendent.

This error has caused tremendous confusion. There have been countless references on these boards, to Eddowes's alleged exchange with the superintendent of the casual ward in "Shoe Lane"; entire threads have been entitled accordingly; and during Andy Aliffe's presentation in Wolverhampton, October 2007, he and his two attendants who were each doing role-plays, made numerous references to the same. Those three in particular, should have referenced "The Sourcebook", instead of "The Facts".

Mei Trow has gone on to bastardize this sequence of events, infinitely more so than Paul Begg initially did. And it is most interesting to note that the bibliography, of his most recent publication, includes "The Facts", but not "The Sourcebook".

Oh, and by the way: There is a massive difference between "31 August" and "1 September"!

Suffice it to say: I would never rely on "The Facts", "The Definitive History", or "The A to Z", as sources of information!

Why fanny about chucking small custard tarts, if the ammunition is within easy reach and strong enough to demolish a whole book, its author and everything he has ever written?

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects* cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

(* My Emphasis)

... I don't think so!

I do know Stewart well enough (personally and through his writing) to know that ...

How very impressive!

... he has no such agenda as the one you suggest here, and I have never claimed otherwise. Nor have I ever compared his work unfavourably with Paul's, or Paul's work favourably with his or anyone else's. Please don't confuse me with other posters, and in future if I say I'm addressing 'anyone' who may be doing such-and-such or thinking such-and-such, that's what I mean. It won't apply to specific individuals who are not doing or thinking anything of the sort, so they have nothing to worry about - unless you come along and make an individual accusation out of it.

What, in God's name, are you talking about?

[caz]

Hi Colin,

Just to make this quite clear, my 'unwanted ripper suspects' comment was referring back to this:

If the purpose is purely to put Anderson firmly in his place that’s one thing. But if anyone here is hoping to replace the Anderson-inspired ‘Jewish ripper’ theories with an equally proof-free ‘truth’ of their own (whether it involves an individual suspect, conspiracy or establishment cover-up - or even an entire group of people who simply couldn’t have produced such a killer), that would be ironic and of doubtful merit, since they would be repeating Anderson’s original sin of arrogantly claiming - or at the very least imagining - that they know something that others don’t.

My 'anyone' could hardly apply to Stewart, could it, unless you think he has been claiming a 'truth' of his own, concerning a solution to the case, which I certainly have not seen him doing anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"I was addressing this to anyone ..."

Might that "anyone", from your perspective, include Stewart Evans?

I'm sure that it does!

Might you be attempting to put words into his mouth?

I am quite certain that you are!

---

Stewart Evans is not, under any circumstances whatsoever, "ripping into the work of any ripper authority", in order to "undermine the (already pitiful) case against a particular suspect"! Period! Full Stop!

Stewart is plainly and simply, in this particular instance, responding to the belligerent insistence, ...

- "Begg's information is best" (or words very similar thereto) -

... of an obsequious jackass, that Paul Begg is infallible.

I can assure you that there are no "unwanted ripper suspects", in the mind of Stewart Evans!

Stewart is, in fact, very supportive of the work being conducted by Chris Phillips, Rob House, Scott Nelson, Chris Scott, et al, ... (whose efforts, I might add; have been for the most part, fair and objective) who have strived to uncover whatever information there is, regarding the suspect "Kosminski" (in all likelihood: Aaron Kosminski).

What is "unwanted" in the mind of Stewart Evans, and many others among us; is the disgustingly biased manner, in which the so-called 'Polish Jew Theory' has been touted by the likes of Paul Begg and Martin Fido.

Blimey, Colin, calm down. You'll do yourself a mischief.

A lot of assumption there, and pretty much all of it wrong.

I do know Stewart well enough (personally and through his writing) to know that he has no such agenda as the one you suggest here, and I have never claimed otherwise. Nor have I ever compared his work unfavourably with Paul's, or Paul's work favourably with his or anyone else's. Please don't confuse me with other posters, and in future if I say I'm addressing 'anyone' who may be doing such-and-such or thinking such-and-such, that's what I mean. It won't apply to specific individuals who are not doing or thinking anything of the sort, so they have nothing to worry about - unless you come along and make an individual accusation out of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

Churchill

What is interesting and relevant in assessing the characteristics of Anderson's writing is the conclusion given by the then (1910) Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. In order to do this Churchill had read the Blackwood's articles and had the following observations.

"There remained the articles in Blackwood's. He had looked through them and they seemed to him to be written in a spirit of gross boastfulness, in the style of 'How Bill Adams won the Battle of Waterloo.' The writer had been so anxious to show how important he was, how invariably he was right and how much more he could tell if only his mouth were not what he was pleased to call closed. The most curious feature of the articles was the extremely spiteful references to other civil servants with whom Sir Robert Anderson served. These would not advance the reputation of the writer either with the public at large or with that great body of civil servants which was thoroughly capable of judging for itself the nature of his conduct."

Anyone who reads this work by Anderson should not fail to agree with what Churchill said, it is pointless to argue political motivation when the points made can be seen to be valid. I cannot see how anyone can suggest that Anderson did not boast in his writings.

[Scott Nelson]

Cobb's 50-year+ assessment isn't based on anything that hasn't already been discussed.

[Phil Carter]

Belton Cobb, 1956.

[COLOR=darkred]
What is "unwanted" in the mind of Stewart Evans, and many others among us; is the disgustingly biased manner, in which the so-called 'Polish Jew Theory' has been touted by the likes of Paul Begg and Martin Fido.

Hello Colin,

Very well put indeed. In my opinion, when one does indeed put some balance into this, one starts to see very quickly that the "support" of Anderson put forward by Messrs Begg and Fido, is not the "be all and end all". Far from it. For the plain fact of the matter is simple. Anderson gave no proof nor provable evidence towards the guilt of his "Polish Jew". Yet this same man's words are the lynchpin holding together the theories of the authors you write of.

Looking into Anderson's life produces question marks against his moral conduct and attitude in the light of his fervent religious writings. Additionally, his self-admittance to breaking the law when it suits the cause, and also of being found out as a liar on important issues, his clearly egoistic manner when writing of himself and his abilities in his role as Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, lead many to question whether we can reasonably trust this man's statements.

Finally, we have to ponder over how much his religious zeal and high moral standards lean themselves to his role as Assistant Commissioner, and how his personal opinions and traits played themselves out in his working life.

In "Critical Years at the Yard: The Career of Frederick Williamson of the Detective Department and the C.I.D."
by Belton Cobb, 1956, Chapter 16, we are told the following:-

".....Dr. Anderson had been in the Prison Department, and had done secret service work in connection with the Irish troubles. One of his major activities was the writing of a very large number of books on religious matters: he had very firm opinions, particularly on religion and morals, and was never afraid of expressing them. But he was not a quarrelsome man-nor one given to `bickering'. `During all my official life,' he wrote later in his autobiography, 'I have never failed to "get on" with any man, no matter what his moods, if only he was honourable and straight .. . My relations with Sir Charles Warren were always easy and pleasant.'

Nevertheless, he had certain characteristics-and held certain opinions-which did not entirely fit him for some of the work he had to do."
(my emphasis)

Whether this has to do with his personal religious and or his moral views or not, Anderson's own words of "getting on with people" as long as they were "honourable and straight" is, I maintain, in direct contrast to his own behaviour which has been shown by many to be less than honourable and far from straight.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

I have started a thread devoted to discussion of the use of apostrophes, in the hope of removing one source of temptation to stray off topic:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4433

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

I was addressing this to anyone who thinks that by ripping into the work of any ripper authority, ancient or modern, they can undermine the (already pitiful) case against a particular suspect.

If that’s not your purpose, fine. It wasn’t intended for you was it?

"I was addressing this to anyone ..."

Might that "anyone", from your perspective, include Stewart Evans?

I'm sure that it does!

Might you be attempting to put words into his mouth?

I am quite certain that you are!

---

Stewart Evans is not, under any circumstances whatsoever, "ripping into the work of any ripper authority", in order to "undermine the (already pitiful) case against a particular suspect"! Period! Full Stop!

Stewart is plainly and simply, in this particular instance, responding to the belligerent insistence, ...

- "Begg's information is best" (or words very similar thereto) -

... of an obsequious jackass, that Paul Begg is infallible.

I can assure you that there are no "unwanted ripper suspects", in the mind of Stewart Evans!

Stewart is, in fact, very supportive of the work being conducted by Chris Phillips, Rob House, Scott Nelson, Chris Scott, et al, ... (whose efforts, I might add; have been for the most part, fair and objective) who have strived to uncover whatever information there is, regarding the suspect "Kosminski" (in all likelihood: Aaron Kosminski).

What is "unwanted" in the mind of Stewart Evans, and many others among us; is the disgustingly biased manner, in which the so-called 'Polish Jew Theory' has been touted by the likes of Paul Begg and Martin Fido.