How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

PS this may help get you started:

BEGG "Anderson is a complex character and no doubt subject to all the failings and foibles that beset all human beings. But after reading Andersons secular and theological writings, and with a knowledge of the morals and mores of the times, as well as an understanding of Anderson’s complicated religious beliefs and how they would have influenced his thinking and actions, the author Martin Fido completely rejected any idea that Anderson would lie in self-interest.”

[Stewart P Evans]

Or...

Or the date of Kosminski's committal.

The Facts, page 346 - "...does not correspond with Aaron Kosminski, who was committed to an asylum in February 1892."

[Jeff Leahy]

BEGG "Much depends on the character of Anderson and Swanson and here next to no work has been done?"

[Stewart P Evans]

You

BEGG "Much depends on the character of Anderson and Swanson and here next to no work has been done?"

He's talking about you here of course.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oh

The Facts, page 359 - "Frederick Porter Wensley, who served in H Division during his junior years and was the first man to rise through the ranks to the elevated position of chief constable, CID..."

Oh, I thought that accolade went to Adolphus Frederick Williamson many years earlier.

[Jeff Leahy]

BEGG “The likes of Gladstone and Lord Salisbury have been examined by successive historians in considerable detail and almost every nuance of meaning has been drained from thorough examination of published and unpublished material. It is therefore possible to say with some degree of probability what either man may or may not have saidor done in a given situation. That is not the case with Sir Robert Anderson, who as far as Ripper revelations is concerned, has really only been assessed by Author Martin Fido, a professional Academic and specialist in the Victorian period who blessed with interest in and understanding of eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character, and who has a general knowledge of the morals and mores of late Victorian society. His accessment of Anderson was made during the research for a book about the Ripper for the centenary of the crimes and led him to conclude that Anderson was one of the more reliable, if not the most reliable, of police commentators.”

EVANS: “ It is the reason why I fight shy of naming other authors, their books, and their mistakes in the reference books I have written. Indeed, we all make mistakes and the old saying that 'the book without a mistake hasn't been written' is probably true?”

So why do it indeed?

[Stewart P Evans]

Idiot

....
EVANS: “ It is the reason why I fight shy of naming other authors, their books, and their mistakes in the reference books I have written. Indeed, we all make mistakes and the old saying that 'the book without a mistake hasn't been written' is probably true?”
So why do it indeed?

Yes, but it's the frequency and seriousness of those mistakes, and I don't think that I have some idiot on the boards championing me as the all-knowing, error-free, know it all. I have got some great stuff yet to post, you really are stupid to wind me up.

[Jeff Leahy]

I’m not winding anybody up. I’m pointing out that Begg has claimed Anderson is a complex character. I’m not pertending Begg is all knowing as you seem to be claiming I am.

Paul has suggested that to challenge Martin Fido we need to look at the reasoning behind his conclusion.

I have been asked to expand on that statement, which Begg has already done in his Ripperologist article in some detail.

And will you please stop resorting to personal abuse. I have said none to you and it does nothing to further conversation about Martin Fido's position and conclusions.

Picking out another authors typo's and nitpicks is rather childish especially when there is a wider and serious question to be considered.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Pontifications

...
Paul has suggested that to challenge Martin Fido we need to look at the reasoning behind his conclusion.
...
Pirate

Considering all the mistakes that Fido has made in the past, and Paul Begg acknowledges this, I would have thought that he would have been a bit more careful in accepting his pontifications.

[Jeff Leahy]

BEGG “He also rejected the until then widely accepted theory that Anderson’s suspect was John Pizer, convincingly suggested in the 1970’s by author Donald Rumblow in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper, and concluded that Anderson’s suspect was ‘kosminski’ referred to by Sir Melville MacNaughten in a memorandum written in 1894.

Fido observed that bothmen provided corresponding detail- both appeared to refer to the suspect’s masterbation (it being a silly notion common in late Victorian period that masterbation led to madness), Anderson calling it ‘unnatural vices’ MacNaughten “solitary vices” and noted that both alluded to an identification, this Fido deducing in the case of MacNaughten from reference to Kosminski resembling a man seen by a city PC (a claim itself not without problems!) Fido concluded, ‘sinse neither Anderson nor Macnaughten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority”

[Stewart P Evans]

Nothing Like

BEGG “The likes of Gladstone and Lord Salisbury have been examined by successive historians in considerable detail and almost every nuance of meaning has been drained from thorough examination of published and unpublished material. It is therefore possible to say with some degree of probability what either man may or may not have saidor done in a given situation. That is not the case with Sir Robert Anderson, who as far as Ripper revelations is concerned, has really only been assessed by Author Martin Fido, a professional Academic and specialist in the Victorian period who blessed with interest in and understanding of eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character, and who has a general knowledge of the morals and mores of late Victorian society. His accessment of Anderson was made during the research for a book about the Ripper for the centenary of the crimes and led him to conclude that Anderson was one of the more reliable, if not the most reliable, of police commentators.”
...

The highlighted section above just about says it all.

Nothing like using your co-author to support your own arguments. It is also, of course, wrong. Several others have taken an in-depth look at Anderson, including accredited historians, and they disagree with the Begg/Fido assessment. As for his religious writings, many of which I own, some of the biggest hypocrites I have met are those who are excessively religious. We know that Fido devoted a chapter of his 1987 book to Anderson, and that contains errors.

However, I find Begg's statement that Anderson "has really only been assessed by author Martin Fido" rather insulting to other authors. As for Fido's conclusion that "Since neither Anderson nor Macnaghten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority.", I leave the dispassionate reader to draw his own conclusions. And Begg is quoting Fido.

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes

BEGG “He also rejected the until then widely accepted theory that Anderson’s suspect was John Pizer, convincingly suggested in the 1970’s by author Donald Rumblow in his book The Complete Jack the Ripper, and concluded that Anderson’s suspect was ‘kosminski’ referred to by Sir Melville MacNaughten in a memorandum written in 1894.
Fido observed that bothmen provided corresponding detail- both appeared to refer to the suspect’s masterbation (it being a silly notion common in late Victorian period that masterbation led to madness), Anderson calling it ‘unnatural vices’ MacNaughten “solitary vices” and noted that both alluded to an identification, this Fido deducing in the case of MacNaughten from reference to Kosminski resembling a man seen by a city PC (a claim itself not without problems!) Fido concluded, ‘sinse neither Anderson nor Macnaughten was given to lying or boasting their joint testimony ought long ago to have been given the highest priority”

Yes, both Begg and Fido never tire of rolling out this early mistake by Don in their books (it makes them look good to point out that they found a mistake by Don didn't you know?). However, glass houses and all that, I think you are going to regret you started this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Pompous

In Begg's 100th issue Ripperologist article on Anderson I found the following to be one of the most pompous proclamations I have ever read on this topic, "Fido's conclusion has been questioned, doubted and even ridiculed, but the grounds upon which it is based haven't been challenged, making the rejection of it rather lame."

[Jeff Leahy]

Begg “MARTIN FIDO WOULD ANDERSON HAVE LIED?

In the chapter ‘the man who knew to much’ in his book. The Crime, detection and death of Jack the Ripper (1987) Martin Fido devoted a couple of pages to an analysis of Anderson, who he described as an ‘evangelical fundermentalist’ and how his religious beliefs would have influenced his thinking and behaviour. He concluded that one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster..and (Anderson) would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force’s reputation.”

PS I havn't started anything I was ask to expand and I'm doing so.

[Stewart P Evans]

An Example

An example of Begg accepting one of Fido's 'observations' (which also appeared in his 1987 book) was as follows.

Fido, using his unequalled academic qualities, specialist knowledge of the Victorian period, and his blessing of 'interest in and understanding of the eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character, and who has a general knowledge of the morals and mores of late Victorian society', wrote, "Another critic was Major Smith, but as Martin Fido observed, 'It goes without saying that Smith the worldling and Anderson the millenarianist were utterly antipathetical personalities. Neither can be imagined having any comfortable dealings with the other, or willingly exchanging confidences."

Begg endorses this conclusion saying, "This observation seems well made, since the attack on Anderson by Smith hardly reads like the two men were friends or even friendly former colleagues."

Well, they both got it totally wrong, in 1901 at the end of Anderson's police career he was in touch with Henry Smith of the City Police and both were on the best of terms and sharing confidences. So much for Fido's wonderful insight.