Did Anderson Know

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

That would be unfair to Ripperologist.

Subscribe. Or order a back number.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Okay, I offer you my recent article in Ripperologist #109.

Regards, Simon

Ok PM it to me

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Okay, I offer you my recent article in Ripperologist #109.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

You wish me to make the opening gambit on this chess match?

Hey you started it...but then i do have the research notes.

Throw me something and lets see where it takes us?

Pirate

Ps I would like to say that there was one older statesman on the panel that at least acted like one...apart from the hoast of course

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Now that we have been thoroughly entertained by the whole gamut of your wit and wisdom, would you care to take this opportunity of explaining to those of us who are not party to your wide-ranging knowledge of the subject the exact nature of "the FACTS regarding Sir Robert Anderson’s history"?

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

But isnt his looney tune article what has been driving this thread for some time?

Pirate

[Natalie Severn]

Jeff,
Simon wrote a brilliant article in a recent rip mag.It wasnt remotely loony !

[Jeff Leahy]

Ah! then we have established you have another looney tune theory.

We are now bartering on just how crazy your theory might be.

No doubt it contains conspiracy and huge jumps of logic. Is this another Mason or fanien theory?

Much like last nights WS panel consulting the facts is obviously going to be a complete waist of time....

Pirate

[Simon Wood]

Of course you can, Stephen. In this instance the lie would be pretending that you do know.

[Stephen Thomas]

As regards Stephen's list of 3 possibilities I'd go for No. 2˝: He knew, but lied about it.

You can't lie if you don't know, Simon.

My #2 still stands

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

A cop out? Hardly. I've just put my head above the parapet.

Why do you choose to ridicule as "looney toon" something I am quietly pursuing [and do not care to share until such time as I have proof] which does not tally with your interpretation of events or those of proponents of such unlikely suspects as Doctor Barnardo, Lewis Carroll or Prince Albert Victor?

The author Charles Simmons put it best: Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool.



That's All, Folks,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

As Shakespeared said,"Lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds".

This is the problem,when someone gets put on a pedestal as has happened in the past ,when certain authors have airbrushed Sir Robert of all his warts.
He is not a neutral figure,with his staunch unionist views.His career as a spymaster was dedicated to the Unionist cause and he can be seen to have been in the leadership of a campaign of calumny against Home Rule and Parnell in the 1880"s.
Had he restricted himself solely to the capture of Fenians and dynamitards,he might not have incurred so much wrath ,but it seems to have been in his nature to want to put his fingers in every pie. In the case of Jack the Ripper,Anderson came a tad late to the act and promptly chose a very muddy pie indeed to put his fingers into,and ended up with the biggest muddle imaginable starting with his off the wall identification and ending with the elderly Swanson"s end note marginalia naming the Ripper!
If you think about it its no wonder people have begun to throw a few tomatoes at it!

[Jeff Leahy]

Thats admirable Simon, a list that is at least 137 long..

But lets face it a MAJOR cop out.

Either have the guts to put your head above the parapit? or shut up

Pirate

Come on Simon give us a clue which looney toon theory are you selling?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Just for the record, here's my list of "no fly" suspects—

"Anyone who thus far has been accused of being Jack the Ripper."

As regards Stephen's list of 3 possibilities I'd go for No. 2˝: He knew, but lied about it.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Thank you Stephen

I am all for balance. And certainly SPE has put forward some interesting arguments supporting the claim at least, that Sir Robert might have been inept on occasion’s.

But to here an entire panel talk with no due respect of the FACTS regarding Sir Robert Anderson’s history beggared belief.

It would be interesting to know what factual information they have to support their wild accusations.

Pirate

PS there is of course the possibility that he actually believed what he was saying. In this of course he could have been right or wrong. But I dont personally believe the fiction and conspiracy theories that surround this simple satement.