How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

Ah yes I think this is where the discussion had gotten to with Ally last night so I will put it in BOLD.

BEGG“Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the accessment on which it was based. Historians and biographers particularly study all they can about life and times of a person they are writing about in an effort to get inside their skin, to understand them, to know what they would not have said, written or done, What ever one may feel about the vagaries of human behaviour and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting any human action, it is or should be- obvious that a conclusion based on a knowledge of the times, on study of the sources and on a though knowledge and understanding of the influence on a person- how in this case other ‘evangelical fundermentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth- can not be dismissed on nothing more than ones own life experiences accompanied by a dollop of common sence”

[Stewart P Evans]

Arrogant

One of the most arrogant passages in Begg's Ripperologist article is the following.

"The criticism of Anderson is ill-informed and lacks cohesion. Critics don't like the identification story, but there is no single, solid reason for rejecting it. Instead critics flail around like a drowning man, grabbing onto any piece of detritus floating past in the hope it will carry them to land."

So there you are, do not dare to criticise Anderson for you are 'flailing around like a drowning man' if you do.

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

Ah yes I think this is where the discussion had gotten to with Ally last night so I will put it in BOLD.
BEGG“Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the accessment on which it was based. Historians and biographers particularly study all they can about life and times of a person they are writing about in an effort to get inside their skin, to understand them, to know what they would not have said, written or done, What ever one may feel about the vagaries of human behaviour and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting any human action, it is or should be- obvious that a conclusion based on a knowledge of the times, on study of the sources and on a though knowledge and understanding of the influence on a person- how in this case other ‘evangelical fundermentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth- can not be dismissed on nothing more than ones own life experiences accompanied by a dollop of common sence”

I don't quite see the point of this post, other than you might have lost the plot. I have never seen two authors who so pompously promote each other and extol their own virtues.

[Jeff Leahy]

The point is that Begg believes that we must challenge Fido's reasoning if we wish to demonstrate that Anderson might have published lies in a book. And to do that I presume one must go back to the original sources Fido worked from which Begg believes no one has ever done.

BEGG “Whether or not we can trust what a source tells us is probably the first and most fundamental question a historian must ask, and in many cases, we cannot know with absolute certainty that it can be. We can, however, draw a conclusion based on the sort of considerations used by Martin Fido.

More seriously, it was pointed out by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow in jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates that “Given all the secret service work Anderson was involved in over the years, it is hard to imagine that he did not frequently resort to deception and untruths of one sort or another” Fido had, however, already considered and responded to that important point, stating that Anderson ‘had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to ones brothers : but denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear the truth they would only misuse” Fido went on to cite an anecdote told by the writer Hargrave Adam about Andreson lying to a suspected murderer in the hope of extracting a confession. Anderson was guilty of making a hair splitting distinction about acceptable and unacceptable lies, and in Fido’s view Anderson’s opinion of acceptable lies did not include ‘publishing lies in books for a wide audience”

[Stewart P Evans]

Theological

The point is that Begg believes that we must challenge Fido's reasoning if we wish to demonstrate that Anderson might have published lies in a book. And to do that I presume one must go back to the original sources Fido worked from which Begg believes no one has ever done.
BEGG “Whether or not we can trust what a source tells us is probably the first and most fundamental question a historian must ask, and in many cases, we cannot know with absolute certainty that it can be. We can, however, draw a conclusion based on the sort of considerations used by Martin Fido.
More seriously, it was pointed out by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow in jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates that “Given all the secret service work Anderson was involved in over the years, it is hard to imagine that he did not frequently resort to deception and untruths of one sort or another” Fido had, however, already considered and responded to that important point, stating that Anderson ‘had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear. He said in his memoirs that he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to ones brothers : but denied that murderous terrorists and subversives were brothers, entitled to hear the truth they would only misuse” Fido went on to cite an anecdote told by the writer Hargrave Adam about Andreson lying to a suspected murderer in the hope of extracting a confession. Anderson was guilty of making a hair splitting distinction about acceptable and unacceptable lies, and in Fido’s view Anderson’s opinion of acceptable lies did not include ‘publishing lies in books for a wide audience”

I own several of Anderson's theological works and have read a couple. I fail to see how they indicate that Anderson would not have lied or misled in his secular works, indeed he did so in The Lighter Side of My Official Life over the Mylett murder for example. And what about the Arthur O'Keefe claim in Sidelights on the Home Rule Movement?

If Fido is so infallible in his assessment of Anderson from his study of him and his works how did he get it so wrong as regards Major Smith (cited above)? What Begg is stating is Begg's opinion - not fact - and you seem to interpret everything Begg says as fact. Distinguished historians and authors of greater stature than I signally draw opposite conclusions to Begg and Fido, are you saying these people are wrong?

Whether they like it or not Begg and Fido are in the minority over Anderson, can you not see that?

[anna]

Think before you post,please.

So...self-induced male deafness resides on Casebook aswell as in reality...now there's a suprise.

The girls...i.e.....Norma and Ally both gave the commonsense answer to this..erm,...conundrum,as the boys see it...ages ago...

None of us knew any of the characters from 1888...nor the mood of actually being in the experience of the murders...plus the obivous..that they probably would have said or wrote anything to get out of the fact that they made a momemental mess up of the investigation..or did they?...we are talking as we see things now..not as they were in those times.It's unfair really to pick them to pieces,when they had so little to what we have now.They did what they thought was correct..they wrote,maybe to protect their reputations..they probably didn't think for one moment that in 2010 we would still be interested in the case...in the 70's there was the thought that we'd be in space-suits by now.
I think that we should also show some respect towards Paul Begg who may as Ally informs us have nipped in to have a look at the thread..probably out of curiosity..maybe he just doesn't feel like posting Ally.

I think people should think before posting thoughts on Mr Begg,as anxiety will not help his recovery from illness....I know the line about authors having thick skins because of having to deal with rejection etc...but just think first,please.

[Jeff Leahy]

Whether they like it or not Begg and Fido are in the minority over Anderson, can you not see that?

Its not a question of seeing or not seeing its simply irrelevant as this is not a popularity competition.

The important question Begg is raising, as I see it is this:

“Fido’s conclusion has been questioned and doubted and even ridiculed, but sad to say, I have yet to see anyone challenge the accessment on which it was based. Historians and biographers particularly study all they can about life and times of a person they are writing about in an effort to get inside their skin, to understand them, to know what they would not have said, written or done, What ever one may feel about the vagaries of human behaviour and the uncertainty inherent in forecasting any human action, it is or should be- obvious that a conclusion based on a knowledge of the times, on study of the sources and on a though knowledge and understanding of the influence on a person- how in this case other ‘evangelical fundamentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth- can not be dismissed on nothing more than ones own life experiences accompanied by a dollop of common sence”

Because this is what a good historian does. Not that I'm suggesting by that someone else is not a good historian. Simply that Fido's source analysis must be challenged if you wish to contradict his arguments and conclusion.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Challenged

...
Because this is what a good historian does. Not that I'm suggesting by that someone else is not a good historian. Simply that Fido's source analysis must be challenged if you wish to contradict his arguments and conclusion.
Pirate

Fido's analysis has been challenged, has been rejected and his conclusions, which have proven wrong in the past, are not accepted.

[Stewart P Evans]

Monopoly

So...self-induced male deafness resides on Casebook aswell as in reality...now there's a suprise.
...
The girls...i.e.....Norma and Ally both gave the commonsense answer to this..erm,...conundrum,as the boys see it...ages ago...
None of us knew any of the characters from 1888...nor the mood of actually being in the experience of the murders...plus the obivous..that they probably would have said or wrote anything to get out of the fact that they made a momemental mess up of the investigation..or did they?...we are talking as we see things now..not as they were in those times.It's unfair really to pick them to pieces,when they had so little to what we have now.They did what they thought was correct..they wrote,maybe to protect their reputations..they probably didn't think for one moment that in 2010 we would still be interested in the case...in the 70's there was the thought that we'd be in space-suits by now.
I think that we should also show some respect towards Paul Begg who may as Ally informs us have nipped in to have a look at the thread..probably out of curiosity..maybe he just doesn't feel like posting Ally.
I think people should think before posting thoughts on Mr Begg,as anxiety will not help his recovery from illness....I know the line about authors having thick skins because of having to deal with rejection etc...but just think first,please.

Do you think that Paul Begg has a monopoly on ill-health?

[Jeff Leahy]

Fido's analysis has been challenged, has been rejected and his conclusions, which have proven wrong in the past, are not accepted.

On the specific question 'would Anderson lye in a book for general consumption?' perhaps you could site?

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Read?

On the specific question 'would Anderson lye in a book for general consumption?' perhaps you could site?
Pirate

I just did, can't you read?

[Natalie Severn]

On the specific question 'would Anderson lye in a book for general consumption?' perhaps you could site?

Pirate

page 133," The Lighter side of My Official Life" by Robert Anderson published -YEAR of 1910

Chapter 1X The Criminal a Polish Jew this is in the Chapter sub -headings of Chapter 1X

page 136-"However the fact be explained ,it is a fact that no other street murder occurred in the Jack the Ripper series"
-this is followed by a footnote "I am here assuming the murder of Alice M"Kenzie on the 17th July, 1889, was by another hand."[he dismisses the Mylett case too- but more of that later.]

OK--- but what about Frances Coles? Why no mention when we know, for a fact that certain of the police thought it was another JtR murder , and that Sadler was thought to have possibly been the Ripper?

And his lie " The Poplar case of December 1888, was a death from natural causes and but for the Jack the Ripper scare noone would have suggested it was a death from natural causes How could he tell such lies? He knew full well that four doctors, headed by the Surgeon in Chief, Dr MacKellar all believed it was murder as well as the jury at the Inquest.Dr Bond was the only one who thought otherwise.


page 137: from TLYOMOL
One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that .........

he was living in the immediate vicinity of the murders ........

Sir Henry Smith writing just after this in 1910 " totally refutes it with" page 147 From Constable to Commissioner": I have no more idea now where he lived [ie The Ripper ] than I had twenty years ago .....!!!

Robert Anderson TLOMOL

----- that his people knew of his guilt ,and refused to give him up to justice


-----it is a remarkable fact that PEOPLE OF THAT CLASS will not give up one of their number to Gentile Justice


"From Constable to Commissioner " by Sir Henry Smith,ex Chief Commissioner of Police , City of London :

page 160: "Sir Robert talks of the lighter side of his official life .There is nothing light here : a heavier indictment could not be framed against a class whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of the Metropolis".


Maybe we should really call Robert Anderson Mr Porkies Gallore . Everybody then seemed to know all about his Fairy Tales !

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

Anderson's deep-seated views on relgion and the human race, seem to point out that it (the human race) is in dire need of salvation.

I compare this conclusion with Mr. Beggs conclusion of the "anti-Andersonites" amongst us.... as we are apparently "drowning".....

A message to Mr. Begg. I, and very many others I see around me, am/are standing on firm ground, without need for help, in no way "drowning" nor flailing about, and in no need to hold on to anything. When entering the "water".. I can assure you that we will all be wearing very capable life vests named "Conclusions upon Anderson Ltd".


That Anderson presented himself as a deeply fervent religious man, writing book after book of moral preaching upon society yet self admittedly breaks laws and also be found to lie in order to bolster his inflated ego, shows me the character of the man. His words simply cannot be trusted. Neither as a religionist, nor as a policeman.

"Not in the interests of my old department" indeed.

One wonders with what morals and guidelines he ran his old department?

Oh yes, disinformation. I remember now.

An example of a lie? You asked for it.
"A def ascertained fact"... now that is an example of a complete lie. A statement unsubstantiated and WITHOUT proof. Printed for us all to consume and believe. It was an attempt to keep his ego afloat. Anderson could never be seen to have failed. Ever.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not getting involved in this hot debate. I have posted before on Anderson and stand firm with SPE in that anyhting Anderson has written should not be relied on as fact.

i also want to reiterate part of Stewart posts where he states that opinions should not be regarded by posters on here as "fact" This misconception by some posters has led to many un-neccessary arguments as posters have not been able to distinguish between fact and opinion. As an example i refer to the various senior police officers including Anderson who have given their opinions in later years.

Evidence of opinion is only admissable as evidence where it is given by an expert on a particular topic and the court is satisfied that in the interets of justice that evidence will assist the court. It usually accepted that such an expert has had at least 5 years experience on the topic. It is normal practice in a criminal case that when one side is intending to call an expert witness. The other side must be given the opportunity of calling their own expert in the same topic.

In reality if any of the merry band of suspects had ever been charged and brought to trial none of the officers statements as they currently stand would be admissable.

With one swift stroke of a pen the whole Ripper mystery could be decimated.

I dont have the time but someone should consider re writing the Ripper mystery taking out all the opinions and the suspects who have been eliminated and the victims who are clearly not victims. Wouldnt be a lot left !

[Jeff Leahy]

I've clearly missed sometime.

'how in this case other ‘evangelical fundamentalists’ thought about truth and how Anderson himself expressed his thoughts about truth?'

Perhaps you could enlighten us on where to purchase a copy and what sources this mysterious author sites?

Pirate