How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry

But it was accompanied by one of those sickening 'winks'; which are intended, presumably, to give the poster carte blanche to be as offensive as they wish, while leaving the person being addressed with no justification for feeling as if they have been insulted.
Essentially, you were told that you were nit-picking over the countless errors found in Paul Begg's "The Facts"; and that you had incorrectly applied the possessive apostrophe / 's', in reference to one such set of mistakes. But, the assertion was 'qualified' with the caveat "no offence"; which makes everything hunky-dory!
So, lighten up!

Sorry, I sincerely apologise to those I may have offended, other than those who have conducted a sustained campaign against me over the years because I don't happen to agree with their tenets. Now I'm being paranoid (they'll tell me).

[Septic Blue]

Sorry, I sincerely apologise to those I may have offended, ...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

--- Click to View the Original Post in JTRForums.com ---

If I were you ...

...

I would …, publicly submit to the infinite "scholarly" wisdom of those who tout the 'Polish Jew' theory.

I might even offer to lick their boots!

[Natalie Severn]

Chasing misplaced apostrophes is the last refuge of the scoundrel !

[Hunter]

Yeah, and we can't even agree on its proper application. LOL

[caz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz unwanted ripper suspects


Don't put words into my mouth!

I wasn’t, Colin.

If you had understood what I wrote and quoted me in context, you'd have seen that for yourself:

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

I was addressing this to anyone who thinks that by ripping into the work of any ripper authority, ancient or modern, they can undermine the (already pitiful) case against a particular suspect.

If that’s not your purpose, fine. It wasn’t intended for you was it?

I never understand why people are so quick to assume they are being blamed for something they have not actually been accused of.

Hi Caz,

Just a point of grammar in regard to "Nichols's". On a possesive noun that ends in an "s" the apostrophe is all that's necessary- Nichols'

Hi Cris,

I took the rule from Lynne Truss’s invaluable little book from 2003: Eats, Shoots & Leaves.

Page 55:

Current guides to punctuation (including that ultimate authority, Fowler’s Modern English Usage) state that with modern names ending in “s” (including biblical names, and any foreign name with an unpronounced final “s”), the “s” is required after the apostrophe:

Keats’s poems
Philippa Jones’s book
St James’s Square
Alexander Dumas’s The Three Musketeers

With names from the ancient world, it is not:

Archimedes’ screw
Achilles’ heel

If the name ends in an “iz” sound, an exception is made:

Bridges’ score
Moses’ tablets

And an exception is always made for Jesus:

Jesus’ disciples

However, these are matters of style and preference that are definitely not set in stone, and it’s a good idea not to get fixated about them.

So on that note Stewart has every right to spank me now.

I do so agree with you about primary sources. I’m always very cautious when modern day opinions enter the mix. I’m also all too well aware how easily the written word can be misinterpreted, imperfectly transcribed, omitted, taken out of context or generally buggered about with and mangled - accidentally or otherwise - and therefore I try to take very little for granted.

If any of the contributors to this site are still capable of being significantly misled, in 2010, by authors who quite obviously favour certain suspects, I'm afraid I'd have to say more fool them.

Love,

The Scoundrel (cheers, Nats - while I'm being kicked, at least the usual suspects are being spared their traditional roasting )
X

[Septic Blue]

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

I was addressing this to anyone who thinks that by ripping into the work of any ripper authority, ancient or modern, they can undermine the (already pitiful) case against a particular suspect.

If that’s not your purpose, fine. It wasn’t intended for you was it?

"I was addressing this to anyone ..."

Might that "anyone", from your perspective, include Stewart Evans?

I'm sure that it does!

Might you be attempting to put words into his mouth?

I am quite certain that you are!

---

Stewart Evans is not, under any circumstances whatsoever, "ripping into the work of any ripper authority", in order to "undermine the (already pitiful) case against a particular suspect"! Period! Full Stop!

Stewart is plainly and simply, in this particular instance, responding to the belligerent insistence, ...

- "Begg's information is best" (or words very similar thereto) -

... of an obsequious jackass, that Paul Begg is infallible.

I can assure you that there are no "unwanted ripper suspects", in the mind of Stewart Evans!

Stewart is, in fact, very supportive of the work being conducted by Chris Phillips, Rob House, Scott Nelson, Chris Scott, et al, ... (whose efforts, I might add; have been for the most part, fair and objective) who have strived to uncover whatever information there is, regarding the suspect "Kosminski" (in all likelihood: Aaron Kosminski).

What is "unwanted" in the mind of Stewart Evans, and many others among us; is the disgustingly biased manner, in which the so-called 'Polish Jew Theory' has been touted by the likes of Paul Begg and Martin Fido.

[Chris]

I have started a thread devoted to discussion of the use of apostrophes, in the hope of removing one source of temptation to stray off topic:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4433

[Phil Carter]

Belton Cobb, 1956.

[COLOR=darkred]
What is "unwanted" in the mind of Stewart Evans, and many others among us; is the disgustingly biased manner, in which the so-called 'Polish Jew Theory' has been touted by the likes of Paul Begg and Martin Fido.

Hello Colin,

Very well put indeed. In my opinion, when one does indeed put some balance into this, one starts to see very quickly that the "support" of Anderson put forward by Messrs Begg and Fido, is not the "be all and end all". Far from it. For the plain fact of the matter is simple. Anderson gave no proof nor provable evidence towards the guilt of his "Polish Jew". Yet this same man's words are the lynchpin holding together the theories of the authors you write of.

Looking into Anderson's life produces question marks against his moral conduct and attitude in the light of his fervent religious writings. Additionally, his self-admittance to breaking the law when it suits the cause, and also of being found out as a liar on important issues, his clearly egoistic manner when writing of himself and his abilities in his role as Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, lead many to question whether we can reasonably trust this man's statements.

Finally, we have to ponder over how much his religious zeal and high moral standards lean themselves to his role as Assistant Commissioner, and how his personal opinions and traits played themselves out in his working life.

In "Critical Years at the Yard: The Career of Frederick Williamson of the Detective Department and the C.I.D."
by Belton Cobb, 1956, Chapter 16, we are told the following:-

".....Dr. Anderson had been in the Prison Department, and had done secret service work in connection with the Irish troubles. One of his major activities was the writing of a very large number of books on religious matters: he had very firm opinions, particularly on religion and morals, and was never afraid of expressing them. But he was not a quarrelsome man-nor one given to `bickering'. `During all my official life,' he wrote later in his autobiography, 'I have never failed to "get on" with any man, no matter what his moods, if only he was honourable and straight .. . My relations with Sir Charles Warren were always easy and pleasant.'

Nevertheless, he had certain characteristics-and held certain opinions-which did not entirely fit him for some of the work he had to do."
(my emphasis)

Whether this has to do with his personal religious and or his moral views or not, Anderson's own words of "getting on with people" as long as they were "honourable and straight" is, I maintain, in direct contrast to his own behaviour which has been shown by many to be less than honourable and far from straight.

best wishes

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

Cobb's 50-year+ assessment isn't based on anything that hasn't already been discussed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Churchill

What is interesting and relevant in assessing the characteristics of Anderson's writing is the conclusion given by the then (1910) Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. In order to do this Churchill had read the Blackwood's articles and had the following observations.

"There remained the articles in Blackwood's. He had looked through them and they seemed to him to be written in a spirit of gross boastfulness, in the style of 'How Bill Adams won the Battle of Waterloo.' The writer had been so anxious to show how important he was, how invariably he was right and how much more he could tell if only his mouth were not what he was pleased to call closed. The most curious feature of the articles was the extremely spiteful references to other civil servants with whom Sir Robert Anderson served. These would not advance the reputation of the writer either with the public at large or with that great body of civil servants which was thoroughly capable of judging for itself the nature of his conduct."

Anyone who reads this work by Anderson should not fail to agree with what Churchill said, it is pointless to argue political motivation when the points made can be seen to be valid. I cannot see how anyone can suggest that Anderson did not boast in his writings.

[caz]

"I was addressing this to anyone ..."

Might that "anyone", from your perspective, include Stewart Evans?

I'm sure that it does!

Might you be attempting to put words into his mouth?

I am quite certain that you are!

---

Stewart Evans is not, under any circumstances whatsoever, "ripping into the work of any ripper authority", in order to "undermine the (already pitiful) case against a particular suspect"! Period! Full Stop!

Stewart is plainly and simply, in this particular instance, responding to the belligerent insistence, ...

- "Begg's information is best" (or words very similar thereto) -

... of an obsequious jackass, that Paul Begg is infallible.

I can assure you that there are no "unwanted ripper suspects", in the mind of Stewart Evans!

Stewart is, in fact, very supportive of the work being conducted by Chris Phillips, Rob House, Scott Nelson, Chris Scott, et al, ... (whose efforts, I might add; have been for the most part, fair and objective) who have strived to uncover whatever information there is, regarding the suspect "Kosminski" (in all likelihood: Aaron Kosminski).

What is "unwanted" in the mind of Stewart Evans, and many others among us; is the disgustingly biased manner, in which the so-called 'Polish Jew Theory' has been touted by the likes of Paul Begg and Martin Fido.

Blimey, Colin, calm down. You'll do yourself a mischief.

A lot of assumption there, and pretty much all of it wrong.

I do know Stewart well enough (personally and through his writing) to know that he has no such agenda as the one you suggest here, and I have never claimed otherwise. Nor have I ever compared his work unfavourably with Paul's, or Paul's work favourably with his or anyone else's. Please don't confuse me with other posters, and in future if I say I'm addressing 'anyone' who may be doing such-and-such or thinking such-and-such, that's what I mean. It won't apply to specific individuals who are not doing or thinking anything of the sort, so they have nothing to worry about - unless you come along and make an individual accusation out of it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Colin,

Just to make this quite clear, my 'unwanted ripper suspects' comment was referring back to this:

If the purpose is purely to put Anderson firmly in his place that’s one thing. But if anyone here is hoping to replace the Anderson-inspired ‘Jewish ripper’ theories with an equally proof-free ‘truth’ of their own (whether it involves an individual suspect, conspiracy or establishment cover-up - or even an entire group of people who simply couldn’t have produced such a killer), that would be ironic and of doubtful merit, since they would be repeating Anderson’s original sin of arrogantly claiming - or at the very least imagining - that they know something that others don’t.

My 'anyone' could hardly apply to Stewart, could it, unless you think he has been claiming a 'truth' of his own, concerning a solution to the case, which I certainly have not seen him doing anywhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[Septic Blue]

I do know Stewart well enough (personally and through his writing) to know that ...

How very impressive!

... he has no such agenda as the one you suggest here, and I have never claimed otherwise. Nor have I ever compared his work unfavourably with Paul's, or Paul's work favourably with his or anyone else's. Please don't confuse me with other posters, and in future if I say I'm addressing 'anyone' who may be doing such-and-such or thinking such-and-such, that's what I mean. It won't apply to specific individuals who are not doing or thinking anything of the sort, so they have nothing to worry about - unless you come along and make an individual accusation out of it.

What, in God's name, are you talking about?

[Septic Blue]

Just to make this quite clear, my 'unwanted ripper suspects' comment was referring back to this:

If the purpose is purely to put Anderson firmly in his place that’s one thing. But if anyone here is hoping to replace the Anderson-inspired ‘Jewish ripper’ theories with an equally proof-free ‘truth’ of their own (whether it involves an individual suspect, conspiracy or establishment cover-up - or even an entire group of people who simply couldn’t have produced such a killer), that would be ironic and of doubtful merit, since they would be repeating Anderson’s original sin of arrogantly claiming - or at the very least imagining - that they know something that others don’t.

My 'anyone' could hardly apply to Stewart, could it, unless you think he has been claiming a 'truth' of his own, concerning a solution to the case, which I certainly have not seen him doing anywhere.

Oh, really? ...

Your faith in the 'Landord' is touching…

…Not wishing to shake that faith, but giving an example, on what date does he say Nichols was murdered? The following from his last Ripper book -

Page 42 - "The night on which Mary Ann Nichols was to die, 30 August..."

Page 44 - "The night [of Nichol's murder], 31 August..."

Page 61 - "Anderson took charge of the CID on 1 September, the day on which Mary Ann Nichols was found murdered."

Since this is the level of debate to which we should apparently be aspiring…

I agree, this is truly unforgivable! It should of course be: [of Nichols’s murder]

Assuming it was the date error that was intended to leap from the above example, I’d just add that if a certain someone - cough - hadn't done the proofreading for a certain universally popular JtR reference work (one that gets much deserved praise heaped upon it by Martin, Stewart and Paul), Mary Kelly might well have been butchered in print on November 8. So it really can happen to the cream of today’s ripper writers.

So it really can happen to the cream of today’s ripper writers.

Can this?

"The Facts", pg. 168: "They turned back early instead of going hop picking, and reached London on the afternoon of Friday, 28 September. In London Kelly managed to earn 6d. Eddowes took 2d. and told Kelly to use the remaining 4d. to get a bed at Cooney's. Eddowes said that she would get a bed in the casual ward in Shoe Lane. In an interview given to the East London Observer, the superintendent of the casual ward said that Eddowes was well known there, but that this was the first occasion that she had stayed there for some time. Eddowes explained that she had been hopping in the country, but she said, ' "I have come back to earn the reward offered for the apprehension of the Whitechapel murderer. I think I know him." "Mind he doesn't murder you too," replied the superintendent jocularly. "Oh, no fear of that," was the remark made by Kate Eddowes as she left.'"

According to Kelly's inquest testimony, he and Eddowes returned to London on Thursday, 27 September, and spent that night together in the casual ward in "Shoe Lane" (City of London Union Casual Ward, Robin Hood Court, Shoe Lane, Parish of St. Andrew Holborn ('Below the Bars'), City of London). Kelly also stated that Eddowes went alone to the casual ward in "Mile End" (Mile End Old Town Casual Ward, Bancroft Road, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town), on the evening of Friday, 28 September. Indeed, it was the casual ward in "Mile End" that was mentioned by the East London Observer, in its seemingly fabled account of an exchange between Eddowes and the casual ward superintendent.

This error has caused tremendous confusion. There have been countless references on these boards, to Eddowes's alleged exchange with the superintendent of the casual ward in "Shoe Lane"; entire threads have been entitled accordingly; and during Andy Aliffe's presentation in Wolverhampton, October 2007, he and his two attendants who were each doing role-plays, made numerous references to the same. Those three in particular, should have referenced "The Sourcebook", instead of "The Facts".

Mei Trow has gone on to bastardize this sequence of events, infinitely more so than Paul Begg initially did. And it is most interesting to note that the bibliography, of his most recent publication, includes "The Facts", but not "The Sourcebook".

Oh, and by the way: There is a massive difference between "31 August" and "1 September"!

Suffice it to say: I would never rely on "The Facts", "The Definitive History", or "The A to Z", as sources of information!

Why fanny about chucking small custard tarts, if the ammunition is within easy reach and strong enough to demolish a whole book, its author and everything he has ever written?

All I would say is that unwanted ripper suspects* cannot be got rid of this way. If that's not the purpose, fine.

(* My Emphasis)

... I don't think so!

[Septic Blue]

Background:

Over the years one gets a feeling that some sources are better informed and more reliable than others.

PAUL BEGGS information is the best and why I take considerable time and care when working on a project to ask his learned opinion.

I therefore presume that if he has stated, he has the balance correct on Anderson, that as always, he is probably correct.

"PAUL BEGGS information is the best ..."

Whether 'Pirate Jack' intended for this assertion to be antagonistic, is uncertain. But it was justifiably interpreted as being just that: Antagonistic and provacative.

...
Over the years one gets a feeling that some sources are better informed and more reliable than others.
PAUL BEGGS information is the best and why I take considerable time and care when working on a project to ask his learned opinion.
I therefore presume that if he has stated, he has the balance correct on Anderson, that as always, he is probably correct.
Pirate...

Are you stating your own opinion here, or a fact? If it is a fact please state why it is.

You are going to have a lot to answer for laughing boy. In the past I have chosen not to mention the many errors contained in Paul's books and especially the A-Z. But I am sick to the teeth of your nonsense ...

Stewart Evans went on to point out some of the more trivial mistakes that are to be found in Paul Begg's "The Facts".

And along comes 'caz', to suggest that …

… unwanted ripper suspects cannot be got rid of this way.

… as if that were ever Stewart's aim, in the first place.

.........

Current State of Affairs:

A lot of assumption there, and pretty much all of it wrong.

I do know Stewart well enough (personally and through his writing) to know that he has no such agenda as the one you suggest here, and I have never claimed otherwise. Nor have I ever compared his work unfavourably with Paul's, or Paul's work favourably with his or anyone else's. Please don't confuse me with other posters, and in future if I say I'm addressing 'anyone' who may be doing such-and-such or thinking such-and-such, that's what I mean. It won't apply to specific individuals who are not doing or thinking anything of the sort, so they have nothing to worry about - unless you come along and make an individual accusation out of it.

Get a clue!

"I do know Stewart well enough (personally and through his writing) to know that he has no such agenda as the one you suggest here, and I have never claimed otherwise."

I have no idea what you are talking about!

"Nor have I ever compared his work unfavourably with Paul's, or Paul's work favourably with his or anyone else's."

I have never suggested that you have! Period!

"Please don't confuse me with other posters, …"

I have not, in this instance, confused you with anyone else! Period!

"… and in future if I say I'm addressing 'anyone' who may be doing such-and-such or thinking such-and-such, that's what I mean. It won't apply to specific individuals who are not doing or thinking anything of the sort, so they have nothing to worry about - unless you come along and make an individual accusation out of it."

You were quite clearly suggesting that Stewart Evans was nit-picking the countless trivial errors that are to be found in "The Facts", in some sort of half-ass attempt to "get rid" ... of an "unwanted ripper suspect"! Period!