5 Questions With : MAGPIE.....Again !

[How Brown]

One of JTR Forums resident book critics is at it again..

Thank you Magpie...once more:music:






1. Do you think that it would be a worthwhile "project" for this website to organize a "think tank" in an effort to remove one suspect from the umpteen suspects on the "list" once and for all?


I don't think that's going to be possible--however much we "prove" someone wasn't the Ripper, there's always going to enough room for doubt so that someone emotionally invested in the suspect will insist that they deserve to stay on the list.

Maybe alternative would a series of "trials" where each suspect has a prosecutor and defender who present their cases for keeping/removing the suspect from the list, with the remainder of the forum acting as a "jury".



2. If you said "yes" to the first question...then whom would you suggest we "work on"? If no, would your rejection be based on the improbability of convincing others of a conclusion said think tank arrived at?

Based on my previous answer, I'd be prepared to be a prosecuter for Montague Druitt and James Kelly; I'd be prepared to defend Sickert, D'onstan (although I'm sure there's folks who could do it better). I'd like to see both sides for Barnett, Cutbush, Kosminski, Condor, Silver, Tumblety, Bury among others.



3. Scott Nelson has mentioned developing a suspect list of individuals who have, to use my words, "fallen through the cracks"...and may deserve the old "once over" twice. Who would you mention in the instance that one such list was developed?

I think Scott has an excellent point! I can't think off-hand who I'd suggest, except maybe McCarthy and Leather Apron (since I'm not convinced that Pizer was Leather Apron). I think some of the higher profile witnesses should be looked at as potential suspects (John Richardson for one). I'd like to see Bram Stoker and Dr. Treves given the once-over too;)


4. What side of the fence do you sit on....in terms of "Anderson up or Anderson down?" Or ar you perhaps still sitting on that fence?

Okay, I've never been a big fan of Anderson--I always thought he was an arrogant, anti-semite who didn't care about the victims but couldn't bear to admit he didn't solve the case.

However, after reading Rumbelow and Evans excellent new book, I've come to the conclusion that I was too easy on the guy. He was incompetent, deceitful, arrogant, petty, snobbish and insecure.

He only made two positive contributions to the case: the first was ignoring it completely and staying out from under the feet of his subordinates (and then scooping in to claim credit for what little progress was made). The second, more concrete, contribution was to bring Dr. Bond in.



5. What would be one suggestion that you have for any member of the Forums to do in 2008 to improve the site...and don't mention getting a payraise for doing the book/magazine critiques...you ain't seeing dime one until you do 20 of 'em


That's a tough one, because I think everyone's been doing a great job so far. Everyone has something special to add to the boards, both Ripper related and in general social terms.

[Paul]

However, after reading Rumbelow and Evans excellent new book, I've come to the conclusion that I was too easy on the guy. He was incompetent, deceitful, arrogant, petty, snobbish and insecure
Howard,
How about starting a thread where evidence pro and anti Anderson can be stated - not opinion, but fact (or fair and sensible inference), with fully cited and if possible quoted sosrces for the claims made. For example, he's been called an anti-Semite, but what is the evidence for that? And, if he was an anti-Semite, how did he compare to the general feeling about Jews existing at that time (after all, in comparison to the general and widespread anti-Semitism of the time Anderson, if he was anti-Semitic at all, may have been a pussycat).

Likewise, he's perceived as arrogant, but was he any more arrogant than his contemporaries, like Major Smith, and other public-school educated people in high office? After all, Anderson may not have cared about the victims, but did anyone else in similarly positioned political or other office really care about them either?

What examples are there of his incompetance? Or his insecurity? Or being deceitful? And against whom and what is he being compared and judged? Again, when drawing conclusions about a person living in 1888 and a product of Victorian education and social conditioning, we should be very careful not to judge him in isolation or by our standards. What was perfectly acceptable and commonly expressed in the UK and US back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s is completely unacceptable today, so Anderson must be judged by his time and those around him.

[How Brown]

Howard,
How about starting a thread where evidence pro and anti Anderson can be stated - not opinion, but fact (or fair and sensible inference), with fully cited and if possible quoted sosrces for the claims made.--Mr. B

Done, sor...

In this Forum....Critics Corner & Opinion Central....and in tribute to Dave Radka, who came up with the phrase a couple of years ago, "ANDERSON UP...OR ANDERSON DOWN".

[Chris G.]

Howard,
How about starting a thread where evidence pro and anti Anderson can be stated - not opinion, but fact (or fair and sensible inference), with fully cited and if possible quoted sosrces for the claims made.--Mr. B

Done, sor...

In this Forum....Critics Corner & Opinion Central....and in tribute to Dave Radka, who came up with the phrase a couple of years ago, "ANDERSON UP...OR ANDERSON DOWN".

Hi Howie and Magpie

Yes good idea about the Anderson thread. I will look forward to it.

I have said this before, despite what the late David Radka said, there is far more to Ripperology than Sir Robert Anderson. It seems to me that Anderson's main contribution to the study of the case, that we know of, is offering the opinion, or rather certitude, that the Ripper was a poor Polish Jew. Well of course, the late Mr Radka was obsessed with the poor Polish Jew theory, so naturally to him everything revolved about Anderson... and you were either for Anderson or against him. Certainly Anderson is a controversial figure and hard to fathom, so it will be interesting to see what conclusions about him we can come to (if any) in the new thread. But I also wanted to add that, with due respect to David Radka, who is no longer with us, his A?R Theory is equally controversial and hard to accept because of some of the leaps of logic that he made.

All the best

Chris

[Magpie]

Hi Paul.

If it's okay with you, I'll answer your questions/comments on the Anderson thread:)

[Paul]

It's okay with me. I'm just grateful your replying! I think it will be good to get the sources for this stuff sorted out. We can do other folk next.