How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Hunter]

As you know I adore Tom Cullen because of his leftist-driven, novelistic style. He made mistakes -- lots of them -- but he also made a case for Druitt that is essentially unsurpassed in its power [Odell called it 'bedazzling' though he did not really mean it as a compliment].

Using a Marxist dialectic, Cullen gave thematic unity to a messy mystery.

That it was practically inevitable that a deranged gentleman of the 'better classes' would kill the neglected dregs of Whitechapel and thus expose this criminal poverty beneath imperial splendor.

Hi Jonathan,

My first Ripper book was Cullen's and like you it made a big impression on me at the time ( I was 14) because his novelistic writing style was captivating. But you've hit on something that we must understand when dealing with his coming to the conclusion that Druitt was Jack the Ripper... He was a Marxist and how convenient it was for him to find a cultured symbol of near aristocracy for the Ripper instead of some low class bloke from the East End. His thematic unity to a messy mystery had a purpose other than historical research. However we as historians, interpret Macnaghten, Cullen had an agenda. I later came to realize that his book was not historical, but political and his version of the JTR saga fit nicely into the political point he was conveying... I have not seen the book in 30 years but I still remember the illustrations; the goulish fiend with a knife stalking the poverty ridden East End... and the hapless and blindfolded policeman wandering amlessly around while the "little people" derided him.... And Oh, Warren? he really raked him over the coals for obvious reasons.

As Stewart correctly pointed out about the viewing of history with bias or an agenda, I now view Cullen's writings as such, and thus approach Druitt with measured caution.

[Jeff Leahy]

You obviously do not read the available material, it's pretty obvious that many people have challenged Fido's flawed reasoning.

I think this is the fundamental problem. Paul doesn't believe that they have.

Martin Fido started writing his book with a completely open mind and that it was from his research into the police officials that he came to believe that Anderson was a reliable source.

History is about analysis – namely forming a conclusion based on an assessment of the available evidence, rather than forcing the facts to fit a preconceived idea.

Paul doesn’t believe anyone has as yet challenged Martin’s Research and conclusions.

I have know doubt that Paul has serious reasons for believing this.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

What an absolutely idiotic response. It's pointless debating with the likes of you. I've yet to find anyone who agrees with Begg's review of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper.

IRRELEVANT

[Jeff Leahy]

Nor do I, I am addressing snide comments and derogatory remarks he has made about me in emails to other people, against which I otherwise have no redress. He gave an anonymous, bad review of the work by Nick Connell and myself in his magazine. That is public knowledge.

PARANOID NONSENSE

[Jeff Leahy]

It would help if you had some sort of clue as to what you are talking about. Your crass conduct is what resulted in these posts. I don't give a monkey's toss what you find 'out of order' and I have not mis-quoted him. I have a lot more ammunition in the locker if you are ready for it.

I'm not the one using bad language and creating hundreds of posts when one will do.

[Jeff Leahy]

It's not personal abuse - it's fact. And many agree with me. I really don't give a fig what you think of me, I'd rather have no contact or debate with you at all.

Many agreeing with you is not FACT its popular opinion.

[Jeff Leahy]

Since when was the subject of this thread about Anderson calling a press conference? As far as I'm concerned you were out for a duck ages ago. Furthermore, don't keep inanely repeating yourself.

There are only two pionts I have made on this thread.

1. Paul Begg has never said that Anderson could NOT LIE. FACT

2. In addressing a claim made by Naterlie that Anderson 'Called a Press conference' I claimed he had NOT. FACT.

Everything else on your part is assumption.

Pirate

PS can we now keep any correspondence to one post per reply?

[Robert]

Sorry to hear Paul is ill. Jeff please pass on my best wishes for his recovery.

[Jeff Leahy]

Sorry to hear Paul is ill. Jeff please pass on my best wishes for his recovery.

Hi Robert

I’m not certain that this subject is within my remit but it was raised and it is true.

I’m fairly certain he is aware of the support he has in Ripper circles. Lets hope he is back and his old self in time for the Beadle lecture.

Many thanks for your concerns I will pass them on when I can

Jeff

[Ally]

And people say I am the reason why there can be no civilized debate on the boards.

[Ally]

[B]

At least he doesn’t come on a public message washing his laundry in public and calling your objectivity into question.

Yeah it's so much better to do what Paul does: email people with his slanders and his criticisms about others. At least Paul has the option here of knowing what's being said and can defend himself if he wants to, which is something Paul's victims dont' always get the option to do.

I find this level of personal abuse frankly somewhat childish and disappointing in an author who I hold in such high regard.

Yes Paul should be ashamed of it, I agree.
People who can't say publicly what they are oh so willing to say privately should be shamed. Rare that they ever are though.

[Natalie Severn]

Dont be frightened of the two headed monster ,Chaps!

There are only two pionts I have made on this thread.

1. Paul Begg has never said that Anderson could NOT LIE. FACT

2. In addressing a claim made by Naterlie that Anderson 'Called a Press conference' I claimed he had NOT. FACT.

Everything else on your part is assumption.

Pirate

PS can we now keep any correspondence to one post per reply?

We have now been over and over and over the above two points you have made on the thread ad nauseum.Move on!

In these last three pages "Paul and Pirate "or "Pirate and Paul" , have made , under the one posting name of " Pirate", a number of other "points" and "assertions" -too numerous to quote-which bring about a certain unease and a sense of being 'hoodwinked" by someone backstage who is "pulling the strings".This is because there is usually a "mismatch" between the tone and quality of one part of the post, written in a serious polemical style and the rest of the post written in the style of a joker! Its like being at a "Punch and Judy" show where the puppet master never actually makes an appearance but we all know he is there urging us all to hiss and boo and egging Punch on to whack someone with a totally inept swing that misses its target by a mile!
Could we stop being treated to this charade please.
Thankyou,
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

And people say I am the reason why there can be no civilized debate on the boards.

No they say that because you talk utter tosh

[Jeff Leahy]

Yeah it's so much better to do what Paul does: email people with his slanders and his criticisms about others. At least Paul has the option here of knowing what's being said and can defend himself if he wants to, which is something Paul's victims dont' always get the option to do.

Is this multi posting thing a new craze on casebook?

Yes Paul should be ashamed of it, I agree.
People who can't say publicly what they are oh so willing to say privately should be shamed. Rare that they ever are though.

I think it reasonable to assume that when anyone is down Ally you will put the boot in. Likely most of us have worked out that she is simply balmy.

More hot air Ally and no substance?

Pirate

[Ally]

Oh I am sorry, you must be completely clueless around me. I don't give a rat's butt if someone is down. I am not a hypocrite. Paul being ill does not in anyway change what Paul has done. Everyone is ill, everyone is dying, it's pretty much the human condition. But when you defend him, and defend his petty acts like that ridiculous book review, you show that you are the one who is talking utter tosh.

If you want people to stop telling a few home truths about Paul, seeing as how he is so down and all, why don't you quit with the rabid over-caffeinated cheerleader routine. He's not going to meet you behind the bleachers no matter how much you Begg.

Paul has done a great deal of damage and has fostered a great deal of ill-will. And frankly, what goes around, comes around. Maybe the title of this thread is apt after all.