How Are The Mighty Fallen

[harry]

From my point of view,I would have expected anyone who subscribe to the point of view that Anderson was writing the truth,to have first established that an identification had taken place.Not by so called historical evidence,but evidence of a physical nature that would leave no doubt that Kosninski had appeared at a certain location,and there identified by a named person known to him,and further that this person had observed Kosminski engaged in an activity that positively indicated Kosminski to have murdered a female,known or suspecred to be a Ripper victim.
Not much to ask.

[Jeff Leahy]

Your faith in the 'Landord' is touching. My problem is much of his sniping at me is done in private emails and an anonymous book review.

Stewart. 'Landlord' is the name of the beer served it the Old Plantation Pub. A fine ale it is to.

It was intended as a joke?

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Sorry Jonathan, you have lost me there.
I was talking about Stewart"s approach as being one which attempts to strip away "preconceptions " by posting the letters , statements and other accounts ,often verbatim, from what he has collected over the years and since 1888 in particular .These are given to the reader within the context of a discussion such as this, so they have the opportunity to gather their understanding afresh from these first hand sources of information. They then may use that material to assess the plausibility or otherwise of the various claims made.That is an approach to history and the quest for the truth which helps to avoid preconceptions.Thats all I was really saying.

[Jonathan H]

Well now you have lost me, but that's ok.

Perhaps we actually agree and are talking past each other.

I certainly agree with you that Stewart, and others, are trying to 'keep it real', but there is also a legitimate place for a flawed, Marxist-driven, prose-masterwork like Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror' too.

Anyhow, what do you think of the theory that Anderson was sincere but perhaps mistaken?

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan, I have had some very sad news just now from which am still reeling.So do excuse me for not being able to gather my thoughts together about your last question.
Best Wishes
Norma

[Jonathan H]

I am very sorry to hear that and hope you will be ok!

[Natalie Severn]

Many Thanks for your kind words Jonathan, Best Norma

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I've lost count of the number of feeble excuses put forward to explain the top police echelon's differences of opinion about the identity of JtR. Faulty memory, confusion, confabulation, old age, doolally tap, bunions . . . the list goes on.

Let's stop pussyfooting around. Somebody was lying.

I'll bet you a Lamborghini to a jelly baby that today's closed-in-perpetuity Special Branch files make no mention of Kosminski, Druitt or Ostrog possibly having been the Ripper. Because if they did, then the all-important Macnaghten Memorandum would be in there too, unknown to us. It wouldn't have been lying around amidst a mass of irrelevant papers in a dusty box file for Robin Odell to discover in 1965.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

I've lost count of the number of feeble excuses put forward to explain the top police echelon's differences of opinion about the identity of JtR. Faulty memory, confusion, confabulation, old age, doolally tap, bunions . . . the list goes on.

Let's stop pussyfooting around. Somebody was lying.

I'll bet you a Lamborghini to a jelly baby that today's closed-in-perpetuity Special Branch files make no mention of Kosminski, Druitt or Ostrog possibly having been the Ripper. Because if they did, then the all-important Macnaghten Memorandum would be in there too, unknown to us. It wouldn't have been lying around amidst a mass of irrelevant papers in a dusty box file for Robin Odell to discover in 1965.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I agree entirely with these comments of yours. Thank you for posting this.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Robin Odell in 1965?

Am I missing something here?

I thought that Dan Farson saw the unofficial version of the Macnaghten Report in 1959, and provided his TV audience with a veiled version of Druitt's identity [the name on the death certificate blacked out]

In 1965, by hook or by crook, the American expat journo, Tom Cullen, published this version of the Report for the first time in 'Autumn of Terror'.

I thought that nobody saw the official version of the Macnaghten Report until 1974, when Home Sec. Roy Jenkins allowed access and the following year Don Rumbelow published it in 'The Complete Jack the Ripper'.


As for top cops lying, I think that Macnaghten was consciously involved in gentlemanly deceit, whilst Anderson was sincere but had a poor, though self-serving, memory.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

There you go again. Gentlemanly deceit? Poppycock.

Macnaghten's memorandum first saw the light of day in Robin Odell's 1966 paperback version of JtR in Fact and Fiction. Dan Farson must have had a self-serving memory.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

You want somebody to say that a top cop was lying?

Fine.

In my opinion, Macnaghten was lying.

But let us be clear on what we are talking about regarding his Report(s)

It is a matter of fact that Dan Farson found the Aberconway version in 1959. Tom Cullen published a section of it in 1965 -- the first to do so, Farson's own book not coming out until 1972.

The Odell book is 1966.

It published what -- exactly?

I presume it was the Aberconway, unofficial version again.

So far as I know, Don Rumbelow first published the official version of the Macnaghten Report in 1975.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I'm certain Robin won't mind me quoting from a recent email of his.

"All files were supposed to be closed until, I think, 1997. I say, supposed, because I did gain access to some of the files in 1965 by unorthodox means. These consisted of two box files with randomly selected contents, much of which was insignificant, but there was one gem. That was the original version of Sir Melville Macnaghten's famous notes. I take the credit (if any is due) for publishing what might be called the 'authorised version' in the paperback version of JtR in F & F in 1966."

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

Well, well, well -- thanks, that is something I didn't know.

Do you actually have this book?

If you do, does he quote the 'said to be a doctor' version in 1966, presumably comparing it's similarities and differences to the unofficial version?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Sorry, I only have the earlier hardback edition.

Regards,

Simon