How Are The Mighty Fallen

[DVV]

Um...Macnaghten and Swanson? Assuming you mean his claims of a Polish Jew suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No Tom, I have no problem with the Polish Jew theory as such.

My problem is about "ascertained fact", "our diagnosis proved to be correct", etc.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Press 'CONFERENCE' where is this coming from? please site source??

Source: Fenian Fire by Christy Campbell.Pages 35 to 49.

"The Times " newspapers journalist Andrew Roberts wrote of this book "

"a genuine historical scoop"

"Irish Times" also wrote :...."drawn skilfully on recently released papers from Home Office files "etc......



Note on source: Christy Campbell is a former defence correspondent and feature writer for The Daily Telegraph as well as an author.He made a speciality of forensic historical investigations and produced a series of special supplements for the Sunday Telegraph on Twentieth Century History. More later........

[Jeff Leahy]

Why do you keep referring to a specific statement using the words 'incapable of lying', words which I haven't used. I have pointed out many times the books that claim very strongly that Anderson would not lie in the context we are debating.

Because my conversation came out of a reply to Norma.

My argument was fairly specific. I said that Begg had never claimed that 'Anderson would not lie' indeed Begg has stated that he believes in certain circumstance Anderson was indeed 'capable of lying'

So I claimed that the debate was actually one about 'Balance' which the rest of your post seems to confirm.

If you don't think Begg has struck the correct 'balance' then perhaps you should take this up with him directly?

I'm certain that he would disagree with that. As I'm sure you would agree ripperology is an ever evolving case and decisions made ten years ago may have had a reason at that time that has changed over time. I have no idea of the details.

Begg has never claimed Anderson would 'NEVER LIE' indeed he believes all people are capable of lying to lesser or greater extent for various reasons both good and bad reasons.

Anderson can only be judged by various sources and each individual must draw there own conclusions as to his character based on specific reference.

No doubt that 'balance' will continue to swing in various directions as new sources are discovered. But the weight of them appears to suggest that on a very big and specific question about the 'definitively ascertain fact' would he lie? it would seem improbable.

Many thanks for bring to my attention that Anderson never named Kosminski. Do you think he was discussing somebody else?

Pirate

PS Thanks Norma. I think there is a big difference calling a press conference and talking to a journalist.

[Natalie Severn]

Robert Anderson went PUBLIC over his confession and nearly lost his pension

Pirate,
Thankyou for your reply. Our posts clearly crossed.I have to go out myself now, but will get back to you .For your information, a full scale inquiry was called for in The House of Commons over the entire matter.Sir Robert Anderson almost lost his pension because of it.Are you twisting things deliberately here?
The statement of James Monro is apparently in the Metropolitan Police Muceum.
The debates in Parliament, following Sir Robert Anderson"s confession to the Press , took place between 11th April 1910 and 20th April 1910 and were minuted.

What are you talking about there is a difference between speaking to one journalist or more than one? Are you kidding? Whether you spoke openly to one Fleet Street journalist or ten the result would have been the same:viz you have gone PUBLIC with your information .That was the offence Robert Anderson committed, not how many journalists he spoke to,because as everyone knows it doesnt really matter how many---one is quite sufficient . But it was "reported" that Anderson called a Press conference anyway, at his home 39 Linden Gardens.

[Stewart P Evans]

Kosminski

...
Also Anderson is not the only person who names Kosminski, so do MacNaughten and Swanson.
...
Pirate

Anderson did not name Kosminski.

[Jeff Leahy]

Phil,
Possibly Anderson"s confession that I referred to above regarding the press conference he called on April 10th 1910, was sparked by his deepening belief , as a Fundamentalist Christian ,in the "Second Coming of Christ"?
But whatever the cause, it was Anderson"s choice to call a press conference.
So I would very much appreciate an acknowledgement from Pirate Jeff for my efforts and his views about whether Anderson"s allegations , which , are refuted by Monro in the strongest possible terms whether they give us an example of Anderson"s propensity to "invent " and then state as fact -in other words to disinform when the occasion suited him .

Pirate himself requested the detail of the press conference confession and Monro allegations.
Best
Norma

Press 'CONFERENCE' where is this coming from? please site source??

[Jeff Leahy]

But according to what he later wrote he did know the full identity, but chose to refer to the killer as "a polish jew" the truth is he was in that position to know the the killer by name.

If he was an honest man and having regard to the high profile case and his position and status he would have named him. There was no reason whatsover to keep it secret.

The problem is that because the polish jew theory fits nicely in line with Kosminski everyone seem to think it must be correct.

After all several other police officers in later years had a stab at it and at least named someone.

Not naming his suspect is hardly surprising, especially given that the case never made it to court. Remember the trouble the police had when they claimed they’d caught the Yorkshire Ripper. There are lots of examples of policeman not naming suspects. Perhaps the best known is one I’m particularly familiar with. The Stripper murders and there is still some controversy over the release of the name Mungo Ireland. Somebody clearly made a mistake letting David Seabrook near that one when they did.

Also Anderson is not the only person who names Kosminski, so do MacNaughten and Swanson.

Do you have any particular suggestions why Kosminski may not have been Andersons suspect?

And as far as I’m aware neither MAcNaughten or Swanson used the name ‘Kosminski’ in public?

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Phil,
Possibly Anderson"s confession that I referred to above regarding the press conference he called on April 10th 1910, was sparked by his deepening belief , as a Fundamentalist Christian ,in the "Second Coming of Christ"?
But whatever the cause, it was Anderson"s choice to call a press conference.
So I would very much appreciate an acknowledgement from Pirate Jeff for my efforts and his views about whether Anderson"s allegations , which , are refuted by Monro in the strongest possible terms whether they give us an example of Anderson"s propensity to "invent " and then state as fact -in other words to disinform when the occasion suited him .

Pirate himself requested the detail of the press conference confession and Monro allegations.
Best
Norma

[Jeff Leahy]

After Robert Anderson"s bombshell about how he had written anti-Parnell articles for The Times in 1887 -- calling a press conference outside his house in Notting Hill* to do so ,on April 10th 1910 ,Robert Anderson was asked the following question by journalists:

"How does it come Sir Robert ,that you as a civil servant ,were allowed to write for the press?"

"Who gave permission to write the articles? The journalists asked.

Sir Robert :" I acted quite correctly in going to Mr Monro."Will this embarrass you " I asked." He said, "I think its very important "

"Mr Monro"s judgment was that it would be a very important step in the anti-Fenian conspiracy---that is why the articles were written."

Monro"s reply:

The alleged statement of Anderson to an interviewer that it was arranged "between him and me" that he should write the letters and that they should be offered to The Times as the best medium for their publication IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT "........Monro continued---
"Anderson"s statement as to his being Political adviser to the Home Office at any time when I was in Scotland Yard is,so far as I am aware UNFOUNDED.
My principle throughout has ever been that in the police matters, politics have no place -and this principle I have followed during the whole time I was at Scotland Yard , under four different Secretaries of State ......whether the government was Liberal or Conservative.....

* 39 Linden Gardens, Notting Hill.

Could you stop being so damned offensive Pirate.I do not have to put up with your abusive remarks you know.

Hi Norma, Firstly thank you for supply the information. However you have again failed to declare it’s source, so it is very difficult for me to check that this information is correct?

There is nothing here that confirms that Anderson ‘called a press conference’? indeed this claim seems to me most improbable. There is a big difference between calling a ‘press conference’ and talking to a journalist. Perhaps you could supply your source and on what grounds they use the words ‘press conference?’ and what they site for that source.

Then you give Monroes reply: Did he also call a ‘press conference’ or did, as I suspect, he talk to a journalist? Monroe’s reply makes no mention of this supposed ‘press conference’ but does mention an ‘interviewer’ ?

Also isn’t Monroes reply that: “My principle throughout has ever been that in the police matters, politics have no place”

Some what curious? Given that he was head of a politically funded secret department specifically established to investigate political subversives?

I’m sure he did believe that policemen should be politically neutral in their work, but everyone knew and knows the police are deeply involved in the investigation of political subversives. Which leaves me wondering if it was Monroe that was being slippery.

Everything still points to the conclusion that Monroe did indeed give Anderson permission in private and approved of him doing so.

Yours Pirate

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

From the following list of written books by Anderson, many many thoughts and opinions can be fathomed. When read one after the other, the overall summary is one of Anderson's intense meanings and an utter belief in his own words, his methods, his sense of self importance and those meanings.

The intensity of his religious fervour is at times, choking to these eyes.
That the man himself, an ardent religionist, allows himself the opportunity to lie and even, at times, claims the right to take the law into his own hands, is totally at odds with the position he holds in society.

Perhaps there are reasons in his police methods to speculate over why he was asked to resign by Ritchie, the Home Secretary, in or about February 1901 as indicated in the memo posted by Simon?

Pseudo-criticism; or, The higher criticism and its counterfeit.
The Buddha of Christendom; a book for the present crisis.
Criminals and crime: some facts and suggestions.
The Bible and modern criticism.
Human destiny.
Daniel in the critics' den : a reply to Professor Driver of Oxford and the Dean of Canterbury.
A doubter's doubts about science and religion.
The gospel and its ministry.
The lighter side of my official life.
The Lord's prayer, a manual of religious knowledge.
Sidelights on the home rule movement.
The silence of God.
"The way" : chapters on the Christian life.

best wishes

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Put up or shut up? Can you respond to Monro"s allegation here at the very least.

After Robert Anderson"s bombshell about how he had written anti-Parnell articles for The Times in 1887 -- calling a press conference outside his house in Notting Hill* to do so ,on April 10th 1910 ,Robert Anderson was asked the following question by journalists:

"How does it come Sir Robert ,that you as a civil servant ,were allowed to write for the press?"

"Who gave permission to write the articles? The journalists asked.

Sir Robert :" I acted quite correctly in going to Mr Monro."Will this embarrass you " I asked." He said, "I think its very important "

"Mr Monro"s judgment was that it would be a very important step in the anti-Fenian conspiracy---that is why the articles were written."

Monro"s reply:

The alleged statement of Anderson to an interviewer that it was arranged "between him and me" that he should write the letters and that they should be offered to The Times as the best medium for their publication IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT "........Monro continued---
"Anderson"s statement as to his being Political adviser to the Home Office at any time when I was in Scotland Yard is,so far as I am aware UNFOUNDED.
My principle throughout has ever been that in the police matters, politics have no place -and this principle I have followed during the whole time I was at Scotland Yard , under four different Secretaries of State ......whether the government was Liberal or Conservative.....

* 39 Linden Gardens, Notting Hill.

Could you stop being so damned offensive Pirate.I do not have to put up with your abusive remarks you know.

You asked me to specify where and when Anderson"s called his press conference and I have done so---despite your rude insistence that I should "put up or shut up".
You have here Monro"s response that I gave you-----what have you to say about Monro, stating categorically that what Anderson told the journalist about Monro were lies?
Talking about Father Christmas is insulting and inappropriate here.

[Stewart P Evans]

A Barbecue?

OK just to keep this debate sizzling I have a question you can each ask yourself.
...
It’s all very well discussing whether or not Anderson may have lied. But what does that mean exactly?
What we are really discussing is would Anderson have told a great big fat whopper?
And it is that that Norma and her cronies have been unable to prove or identify.
And it was on that question that Martin Fido obviously went in search in Anderson’s theological books.
Because the fact remains that most human beings will lye for one reason or another.
The question here is not about that. The real question is would Anderson have told the world he new the identity of Jack the Ripper when he did NOT.
And it is the answer to that simple question that is the core here. Even if others appear to being running a sub agenda.
Pirate
...

Sizzling, what's this - a barbecue?

Yes, Anderson could tell a lie and it has been shown that he did, you have signally be unable to prove that he did not lie. And therein lies the rub.

Yes, he would have told the world he knew the identity of Jack the Ripper when he did not - that is just what he did do.

Why don't you toddle off and apply to become a political candidate, I am sure you would feel really at home.

[Stewart P Evans]

Many Thanks

Apologies if my last post seemed puerile. I did not mean any offence to Stewart.
I stand by my belief that Anderson is a target for cheaper shots than most individuals of the time. Thats no to say he is beyond criticism, far from it.

Jason, many thanks for that, appreciated, there are many who would not have been as brave as you obviously are.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your own opinion of Anderson, as everyone is. And you are correct that he is, sometimes, a target for 'cheaper shots'. However, I like to think that I am not in the game of taking 'cheap shots' and that I do, at least, back up anything that I say about him with facts and information.

I have indicated that I didn't really agree with Simon's title for this thread, but it is his thread. As it happens it looks as if his take on the memo was correct, as witness the piece from Police Review.

[jason_c]

Apologies if my last post seemed puerile. I did not mean any offence to Stewart.

I stand by my belief that Anderson is a target for cheaper shots than most individuals of the time. Thats no to say he is beyond criticism, far from it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Balance?

I dont know if I'm missing something here but at no time does BEGG state Anderson was 'incapable of Lying'? Go back and read what Begg claims in post ref: 130
This disagreement as you well know is about 'balance'
Pirate

Why do you keep referring to a specific statement using the words 'incapable of lying', words which I haven't used. I have pointed out many times the books that claim very strongly that Anderson would not lie in the context we are debating.

You use the classic politician's ploy of failing to answer the simple questions that are being put, usually by raising something else that has nothing to do with it, ergo you have failed to comment upon the rather telling fact that the piece from the Police Review that militates against Anderson's capabilities as a head of detectives was omitted from the last edition of the A-Z and thus many did not know about it. Of course, such omissions result in an imbalance of the information provided on Anderson, there being much more published, in certain books, that favours him, whilst anything that may detract from his image or reputation is left out.

So it is untrue and misleading for you to say "This disagreement as you well know is about 'balance'." But while we are on the subject of balance, I can tell you, and anyone with a pair of eyes can see it, the Fido and Begg books are biased and tilted heavily in favour of Anderson and Anderson-based theories. This may be denied by some, and their apologists, but believe me, most of the leading authorities whom I know agree with this assessment.

Now this 'imbalance' is fine if you are writing a book proposing a specific suspect and making out the case for him being the Ripper. But the Uncensored Facts and the A-Z are presented as works of reference, and thus should remain factual and objective and be free of tendentious commentary and too much authorial opinion. It should also be noted that their words carry more weight with readers than a book proposing a suspect.

To understand all this and to view it from the broader perspective it really is best to have been deeply interested in the books on the case as they appeared over the years and to know the ramifications of new finds and claims. For instance, Paul Begg sets his stall very early on in his book (1988) - in the second paragraph of the Introduction. He states - "At the end of 1987 new information came to light which seems to provide the answer to the mystery of Jack the Ripper's identity. Indeed, evidence that the police knew his identity has been in the public domain - and has been pretty consistently ignored or misunderstood - since at least 1908!"

These are bold and tendentious words - and really do set up the position of this book and, later, the A-Z. He also sets up high standards for himself by saying "Any comparison of the books about Jack the Ripper will reveal contradictions and a wealth of deceptive, unsupported, and in some cases utterly false detail. The names of witnesses have been incorrectly given, some important witness testimony has been omitted or given insufficient attention, relevant documents have been misunderstood or misinterpreted, sources have not been cross-checked and errors have not been corrected."

Now whilst it can be argued that what he says here is true, by publishing it as an obvious criticism of other authors' works he then has to be very careful about anything he writes himself. 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. Another apt phrase is that he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. Paul addresses this very point in his next paragraph, so why do it?

He later says, "But my object in writing it has not simply been to establish the facts for the sake of correcting the errors of others." Oh dear, that really is sticking your head above the parapet. He says, "Indeed, if Sir Robert Anderson, head of CID at the time of the murders, is to be believed, the identity of Jack the Ripper was an established fact." And he goes on to set out the case for why Anderson should be believed.