'The Swanson Marginalia' Revisited

[Chris]

Are you saying that you haven't posted under your own name* on these boards things that have actually been written by Paul Begg?

I am in regular contact with Paul Begg. When Stewart started being personal towards me on this thread the other day, I hadn't seen or spoken to paul for some days.

I won't ask you the question again, because it's obvious you aren't willing to answer it. But the fact that you have resorted to that carefully chosen form of words makes the situation pretty clear, I think.

In the circumstances, it is extremely disingenuous of you to complain that you are being "dragged into" the argument.

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff

From what I have seen, Stewart has been incredibly patient with you on this thread.

As for "not dragging you into it", let me ask you a direct question. Are you saying that you haven't posted under your own name* on these boards things that have actually been written by Paul Begg?

[* By which I mean "Pirate Jack", of course.]

Thats fine and your opinion. I have however never resorted to personal comments before they have been levied at me. Its that simple.

I am in regular contact with Paul Begg. When Stewart started being personal towards me on this thread the other day, I hadn't seen or spoken to paul for some days.

Pirate

[Chris]

Jeff

From what I have seen, Stewart has been incredibly patient with you on this thread.

As for "not dragging you into it", let me ask you a direct question. Are you saying that you haven't posted under your own name* on these boards things that have actually been written by Paul Begg?

[* By which I mean "Pirate Jack", of course.]

[Jeff Leahy]

I actually find Begg's statement that I am 'ill-informed' to be quite offensive and damaging to my reputation. A lot of people take notice of what he says and his public statements. I don't think that I have ever accused him of being ill informed. But now I have an acolyte of his making offensive remarks to me, clearly based on what he has been told (or read about) by Begg. If Paul Begg does want me to stay quiet and not get involved in public discussion of what he writes then I suggest that he moderates it.

He should also make clear what parts of what he writes are merely his opinion and not actually fact.

Hold on a minute Stewart. The offensive post I made was in response to a string of sneering posts you made. They had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with Paul Begg.

Ironically you attacked me personally with very much the same sort of sentiment you yourself are complaining about..

My only interest is in the identity of JtR. Not in personal politics’.

Clearly there are currently two schools of thought in this area and I’m interested in why? And I will continue to ask difficult questions of both sides of that thought process/argument. Out of public interest.

If you have a person gripe with Paul that’s up to you but don’t drag me into it.

I am quite capable of listening to both sides of the argument and drawing my own conclusions. However I don’t see why I should be personally insulted by anyone, no matter what there standing in the field. It’s that simple. And if you do I hold the right to retaliate.

I simply request in the interest of debate and discussion that you yourself refrain from personal abuse. I certainly have NO personal differences with you. None what so ever. Indeed I am very interested in what you have to say..

I have copies in front of me, of both Scotland Yard Investigates and Sir Robert Anderson: A source Analysis, contrary to popular conception I can read. And I’m quite capable of reaching my own conclusions, which neither totally agree with Begg, Fido or Evans.

Just lay off the personal insults Stewart and stay on topic.

Pirate

[Nothing to see]

OK. I won't post on this again. I will say that you, Stewart, post your thoughts.

Other than that, I am out of here and I won't post on this matter any more.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

OhhhKaay. I am in the middle of something but I won't back out of the room.
I have pretty well all of Paul Begg's books, written by himself or co-authored.
I have pretty well all of Stewart Evans' books, written by himself or co-authored.
You people are experts. It's guys like me who post here, and buy your books, and visit London, who read what you think.
If you don't agree, I can deal with that. But don't trash each other.
I figure a major chill out. To your corners. Have a think. Then come out fighting.

Thank you for the interest but you would probably be well advised to stand back from involvement.

I am well able to see why you might be disappointed but, I think it is true to say, you will find this sort of disagreement in many fields of study, no matter how academic they may be. It is not peculiar to Ripper studies. We do try to avoid things getting to a personal level but points were publicly raised on these boards about Paul Begg's latest article and readers had immediately noted his veiled and not-so-veiled references to me.

It is this that I have responded to and I have no doubt that many others may be enjoying it. Be that as it may, I am merely responding to public comments made about me both directly and indirectly. I don't have to take it quietly and I will not take it quietly.

I also feel that those interested in this subject have a right to know what is actually happening, much too much in the past has 'gone on behind the scenes.' But it is Paul Begg, himself, who has brought this particular 'debate' into a public forum and who has been openly very critical of me.

[Nothing to see]

OhhhKaay. I am in the middle of something but I won't back out of the room.

I have pretty well all of Paul Begg's books, written by himself or co-authored.

I have pretty well all of Stewart Evans' books, written by himself or co-authored.

You people are experts. It's guys like me who post here, and buy your books, and visit London, who read what you think.

If you don't agree, I can deal with that. But don't trash each other.

I figure a major chill out. To your corners. Have a think. Then come out fighting.

[Stewart P Evans]

Throw Me a Lifebelt - I'm Drowning!

"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 that it will carry them to land. Anderson is therefore proclaimed an outright liar, a bigot, a racist, an elitist, or an anti-Semite; it's claimed that he wrote when suffering geriatric confusion/forgetfulness/wishful thinking, or because he was desperate to claim a solution to the Ripper mystery. Rarely is there any good, weighty support for the speculation." - 'Sir Robert Anderson: A Source Analysis' by Paul Begg, Ripperologist 100, March 2009.

Well there's a good objective and unbiased assessment if ever I saw one. And, of course, as Begg perceives me as the arch Anderson critic it doesn't take a genius to see that he thinks that I am 'ill-informed', that my arguments 'lack cohesion', and that I am 'flailing around like a drowning man, grabbing onto any piece of detritus floating past in the hope that it will carry [me] to land.' Maybe I'm paranoid (I hope not) but this direct attack by him, on me, I am supposed to ignore and not publicly respond to. For he does not like what he perceives as an aggressive and, more to the point, public response. Others saw quite clearly what he was about, as witness the posts by Tom Wescott and Don Souden placed before I entered the arena.

I actually find Begg's statement that I am 'ill-informed' to be quite offensive and damaging to my reputation. A lot of people take notice of what he says and his public statements. I don't think that I have ever accused him of being ill informed. But now I have an acolyte of his making offensive remarks to me, clearly based on what he has been told (or read about) by Begg. If Paul Begg does want me to stay quiet and not get involved in public discussion of what he writes then I suggest that he moderates it.

He should also make clear what parts of what he writes are merely his opinion and not actually fact.

[Nothing to see]

Wow. I haven't posted on here for a few days and I've just gone back 10 or so pages and it's pretty much been personal attacks. Why don't you people just pm each other?

Anyway, Stewart is on-line and we're back on track.

Reid and Cox, Stewart. How much did they know?

[Stewart P Evans]

Heated Exchanges

As we have seen, this topic is very contentious and results in heated exchanges and idiotic statements from certain quarters. I consider that many published remarks in this respect are inflammatory.

It has been indicated to me in the past that I am unscholarly and, indeed, that I lack 'scholarly training.' I am, in fact, a mere ex-police officer who appears to be clueless about historical evaluation. Be that as it may, I am still entitled to my opinion and to state the facts. I ask no more than to be judged by my own record in this field. I have done much research on Sir Robert Anderson, I have amassed a large amount of information about him, much of which has never appeared in Ripper related books, nor has it been reproduced on these, or any other boards.

But my efforts are in vain. I have not assessed Anderson, what I have opined about him is irrelevant and off the mark and should be ignored. My rejections of previous assessments of Anderson are 'lame', and simply wrong. In fact I am merely seeking 'to douse the tale with as much icy water' as I can. How do I know this? Well I am clearly informed of this in the article in the latest Ripperologist, 'Sir Robert Anderson: A Source Analysis.'

Here we are told that Robert Anderson "who as far as his Ripper revelations is concerned, has only really been assessed by author Martin Fido" who is much more qualified to do so than I am as he is "a professional academic and specialist in the Victorian period who is blessed with an interest in and understanding of the eccentric religious beliefs of Anderson and their influence on his character..."

Obviously as a mere ex-police officer I am wasting my time making my own assessment of Anderson, or, worse still, writing about him. We are reminded that "neither Anderson nor Macnaghten was given to lying or boasting" [Fido] and that "one thing is certain about the dedicated and scrupulous Christian: he is not a vainglorious liar or boaster" and that he "would never have lied about his professional life to enhance either his own or his police force's reputation" [Fido]. The article tells us that Fido's conclusion "has been questioned, doubted and even ridiculed", but that "the grounds upon which it is based haven't been challenged, making the rejection of it rather lame." Well, as a plebian ex-policeman who is unscholarly and lacks the necessary academic training, what do they expect? It's not my fault, I'm simply not educated enough.

To draw my own conclusions I should first make sure that they are based on "a knowledge of the times, on a study of the sources, and on a thorough knowledge and understanding of the influences on a person carries weight and authority." The article instructs us on principles of historical interpretation and reassures us that "We can, however, draw a conclusion based on the sort of considerations used by Martin Fido." This, to me, smacks of academic (maybe even intellectual) snobbery and I suppose the hidden message is that if you are not capable of meeting these requirements you may just as well give up.

It is forcefully pointed out (pp 18-19) that Evans and Rumbelow have got their assessment of Anderson wrong (in Jack the Ripper Scotland Yard Investigates) in daring to suggest that "it is hard to imagine that he [Anderson] did not frequently resort to deception and untruths of one sort or another." Martin Fido was there before us and had concluded that Anderson "had occasion to make his attitude to mendacity quite clear and that "he perceived an obvious Christian duty never to lie to one's brothers" and would only do so to "murderous terrorists and subversives". Fido's final conclusion is that "Anderson's opinion of acceptable lies did not include publishing lies in books for a wide audience." So there you are folks, you can safely read Anderson's works knowing that it is the total truth and contains no deception or untruth of any sort. And we may also be sure that he does not boast.

It is stated (page 19) that "Beyond Martin Fido, Robert Anderson has only received patchy assessment..." which means that you should not really consider any assessment of Anderson, other than Fido's, as valid. It obviously kicks into touch any other published assessment of Anderson.

And people wonder why I 'suddenly' leap into posting on the boards with what they perceive as a 'personal attack' on Fido and Begg. So, am I am expected to ignore, and not respond to, criticism, both stated and implied, published for a general readership and just sit quietly and recognise my place in the order of things? Perhaps they are right, perhaps I should stay quiet - and I should certainly not indulge in public comment upon what has been published. Anything I have to say about that should be done privately.

And, by the way, don't let anyone dare to suggest that Messrs Fido and Begg have anything in the shape of an Anderson bias, that could mean trouble. Having a bias is both unscholarly and subjective.

[Stewart P Evans]

Harry Cox

"Much has been written regarding the identity of the man who planned and successfully carried out the outrages. Many writers gifted with a vivid imagination have drawn pictures for the public of the criminal whom the police suspected. All have been woefully wrong. In not a single case has one succeeded in discovering the persons who while the trail of blood lay thick and hot was looked upon as a man not unlikely to be connected with the crimes.
...I may give a theory as to the cause of the crimes, but on no account can I enter into the theories of my brother officers or indicate whether or not the last has been heard of the crimes.
There are those who claim that the perpetrator was well known to the police; that at the present moment he is incarcerated in one of His Majesty's penal settlements...These theories I have no hesitation in dispelling at once." Ex-Detective Inspector Harry Cox, City Police - 1 December 1906.

[Stewart P Evans]

Edmund Reid

Then why does the person in charge state quite clearly that he does? amd NOT ONE of them goes to the press and says 'hay you know what he's making it up?'
NOT ONE
Pirate

"Now we have Sir Robert Anderson saying that 'Jack the Ripper' was a Jew. That I challenge him to prove; and, what is more, it was never suggested at the time of the murders." - Ex-Detective Inspector Edmund Reid (ex-head of Whitechapel CID), 23 April 1910.

[Jeff Leahy]

My 2d's worth - none of them knew.

Then why does the person in charge state quite clearly that he does? amd NOT ONE of them goes to the press and says 'hay you know what he's making it up?'

NOT ONE

ANd then we have his second in command writing, for his own purpose, NOT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION, in the margin of a book a story which would seem to confirm 100%, that what Anderson was saying was IN FACT, true?

All rather odd I agree, but the evidence would appear to be against you.

All the best

Pirate

[harry]

Stephen,
What I wrote about is surely the crux of the matter,and there exists a suspicion that the annotations,which appear to support Anderson,might themselves be false.
However I would willingly retract anything I have said,if you or anyone else can submit evidence that shows an identification took place,the name of the suspect,the person who identified that suspect,the officers who accompanied the suspect,and the place of identification.E vidence,that is,which is outside the mere written claims of Anderson and Swanson.To make it even easier,I will accept just one of the forementioned.

[Jez]

My 2d's worth - none of them knew.

Quite agree. All this "telling tales out of school" and "hot potato" stuff.... none of them had a clue, of course.