Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Herlock Sholmes 4 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Joshua Rogan 9 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Herlock Sholmes 38 minutes ago.
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - by Michael W Richards 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Observer 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (33 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (3 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (1 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Jack the Poet - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Shades of Whitechapel

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 01-04-2017, 12:45 AM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
QUOTE=Mayerling;405296



Hi Jeff,

Judges where men exclusively.

Regards, Pierre
Hi Pierre,

Yes, but not in the Jewish Bible - the Book of Judges in the Old Testament has Deborah as an exception to the rule. So Judges (especially Jewish ones) are not exclusively male.

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 01-04-2017, 01:21 AM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
Hi Abby

While I grant that fictional stories might have inspired real killers, I don't see it in the Ripper case, not even in the case of "Jekyll and Hyde."

I am talking about how people today suck all this stuff up and think they have a viable theory involving, say, Robert Lewis Stevenson or Vincent Van Gogh, or some other luminary or murderer of the day. On little or no evidence whatsoever.

Best regards

Chris
Hi Chris,

I agree that the tendency to push together some theory of a prominent figure of some sort in Victorian England or Europe is overdone. Lewis Carroll, Vincent Van Gogh, Walter Sickert, the Duke of Clarence, it is just overdone. I really suggesting anything like that, and certainly never would have suggested it for Stevenson due to his health problems (in fact, by 1888 he, Fanny, and her son Lloyd Osbourne were safely ensconced in Samoa for Stevenson's recovery). My view is that people can pick up ideas, even from fiction. For example, at the time of the 1930 "Blazing Car" murder by Alfred Rouse, it turned out that there had recently been a similar killing in Germany that Rouse may have read or heard about, and that there was a novel about spies where a murdered spy is burned up in an arson fire in his car (I think the title was "The "W" Plan").

The possibility of an idea's germ being laid that way intrigues me. Hence my curiosity about the closeness in time of the publication of "A Study in Scarlet" in Beeton's Christmas Annual of December 1887, and the Whitechapel Murders the following summer into fall, in particular regarding that "Rache" clue on a wall and the "Juwes" clue on Goulston Street's wall. But to be fair, if you read that piece of mine in "Who Was Jack the Ripper?", I pointed out that Conan Doyle himself was influenced by an 1882 murder (in Dalton, England) of a Constable by one Thomas Orrock, where a vital clue was a chisel found near the dead man with the letters "R" "O" "C" "K" on it, that everyone assumed meant "rock". Only later did the police find that two other letters (and "O" and an "R") proceeded these four, and thus created the name of the killer on the chisel. They had not been seen because they had been worn down - a magnifying glass was needed to see them.

So it's a two way street, with real events being used by writers for their effects in their writings, but also for the writings to give some ideas to readers. My real problem with this is the difficulty, even if it is a truthful connection, of linking it to anyone specifically.

I am now looking into "Dr. Jeckyll...." because of it's appearance in 1886, and it's view of the two sides of a human personality. Also it's translation by Mansfield into a highly successful stage work. Under the circumstances it looks promising - but I can't tell how. Oddly enough, in 1888, Stevenson wrote (with his step-son Lloyd) another novel that deals with dead bodies and what to do with them - "The Wrong Box". But it is a comic novel (it was later turned into a successful film with Michael Caine and Ralph Richardson).

By the way, 1888 was not a really banner year for literature. The best known work to be produced (in terms of lasting popularity) was General Lew Wallace's novel "Ben-Hur, A Story of the Christ". Even a major talent like Henry James was only producing the minor novel, "The Rejuvenator". Mark Twain was working on "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", but it would not be published until 1889. Tolstoi was active but I don't recall any major work that year (if you know of one, let me know). Jules Verne had just written "Robur The Conqueror" ("The Clipper of the Clouds") about heavier-than-air flight in 1886. I think his major works for 1888 were either his American Civil War novel ("North and South") or his novel regarding Norway's desire for independence from Sweden ("The Lottery Ticket").

Some literary passings of note: Edward Lear died. So did Louisa May Alcott (shortly after the death of her transcendentalist philosopher father Bronson).
One party whose mental activities in 1888 I would have wondered about seriously was the dying Wilkie Collins (he would die in 1889), who actually might have taken an interest in the Whitechapel Case, but (to be honest about it) may have been in too dense a cloud of opium induced mental confusion by this time to have any grasp on what was going on.

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 01-04-2017, 04:11 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayerling View Post
Hi Chris,

I agree that the tendency to push together some theory of a prominent figure of some sort in Victorian England or Europe is overdone. Lewis Carroll, Vincent Van Gogh, Walter Sickert, the Duke of Clarence, it is just overdone. I really suggesting anything like that, and certainly never would have suggested it for Stevenson due to his health problems (in fact, by 1888 he, Fanny, and her son Lloyd Osbourne were safely ensconced in Samoa for Stevenson's recovery). My view is that people can pick up ideas, even from fiction. For example, at the time of the 1930 "Blazing Car" murder by Alfred Rouse, it turned out that there had recently been a similar killing in Germany that Rouse may have read or heard about, and that there was a novel about spies where a murdered spy is burned up in an arson fire in his car (I think the title was "The "W" Plan").

The possibility of an idea's germ being laid that way intrigues me. Hence my curiosity about the closeness in time of the publication of "A Study in Scarlet" in Beeton's Christmas Annual of December 1887, and the Whitechapel Murders the following summer into fall, in particular regarding that "Rache" clue on a wall and the "Juwes" clue on Goulston Street's wall. But to be fair, if you read that piece of mine in "Who Was Jack the Ripper?", I pointed out that Conan Doyle himself was influenced by an 1882 murder (in Dalton, England) of a Constable by one Thomas Orrock, where a vital clue was a chisel found near the dead man with the letters "R" "O" "C" "K" on it, that everyone assumed meant "rock". Only later did the police find that two other letters (and "O" and an "R") proceeded these four, and thus created the name of the killer on the chisel. They had not been seen because they had been worn down - a magnifying glass was needed to see them.

So it's a two way street, with real events being used by writers for their effects in their writings, but also for the writings to give some ideas to readers. My real problem with this is the difficulty, even if it is a truthful connection, of linking it to anyone specifically.

I am now looking into "Dr. Jeckyll...." because of it's appearance in 1886, and it's view of the two sides of a human personality. Also it's translation by Mansfield into a highly successful stage work. Under the circumstances it looks promising - but I can't tell how. Oddly enough, in 1888, Stevenson wrote (with his step-son Lloyd) another novel that deals with dead bodies and what to do with them - "The Wrong Box". But it is a comic novel (it was later turned into a successful film with Michael Caine and Ralph Richardson).

By the way, 1888 was not a really banner year for literature. The best known work to be produced (in terms of lasting popularity) was General Lew Wallace's novel "Ben-Hur, A Story of the Christ". Even a major talent like Henry James was only producing the minor novel, "The Rejuvenator". Mark Twain was working on "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court", but it would not be published until 1889. Tolstoi was active but I don't recall any major work that year (if you know of one, let me know). Jules Verne had just written "Robur The Conqueror" ("The Clipper of the Clouds") about heavier-than-air flight in 1886. I think his major works for 1888 were either his American Civil War novel ("North and South") or his novel regarding Norway's desire for independence from Sweden ("The Lottery Ticket").

Some literary passings of note: Edward Lear died. So did Louisa May Alcott (shortly after the death of her transcendentalist philosopher father Bronson).
One party whose mental activities in 1888 I would have wondered about seriously was the dying Wilkie Collins (he would die in 1889), who actually might have taken an interest in the Whitechapel Case, but (to be honest about it) may have been in too dense a cloud of opium induced mental confusion by this time to have any grasp on what was going on.

Jeff
Hi Jeff,

I donīt know your background, perhaps it is the field of achademic literature. You seem to be very interested in how literature can create a starting point for understanding and interpreting the Whitechapel killer, rather than the Whitechapel murders. Is that correct? Or do you think that there is something to learn about the murders from the type of literature you are discussing here? If so, what can be learned?

My own interest is within sociology (apart from history) and as I see it, there is much more to learn about the killer and the murders from sociological perspectives than from literature written in Victorian times - and I also say this as an historian (!).

If you analyze the murders, using for example sociological theories about how knowledge is internalized / learned and how practice is externalized, you understand, on an individual level, that the structural networks and systems of society which bring about this learning and which allow for / make possible this practice, are useful for understanding the murders and also the killer. How?

Firstly, we can forget about inspiration from one or two books, and look at societies where people like the Whitechapel killer lived, where things similar to the things he did were done.

We can study learning processes and what types of knowledge people had. If you think that the killer had the knowledge and pratical ability for disembowelling and nosecutting, which he obviously had, he must have learned it somehow in some society and some situtation.

So, in what types of societies and situations in Victorian times, did people disembowel people, and in what types of societies and situations did they cut off noses?

And what social meaning had these types of practises? How can it be understood from a cultural perspective? And how can it throw light on the Whitechapel murders - and the killer?

Learning such behaviour is a long process. You see it being done, and/or having been done to people, you hear about it and think about it. Since you experience it in different ways, you learn how it is done. When you have done it yourself one time, you are able to do it several times.

But reading about murder and mutilation in a book is very far from knowing and practising murder and mutilation. It is a different thing if you see a murdered and mutilated body in real life, and if you also understand it as a cultural practise in your own immediate situation, you understand why it was done. That is something you do not get from literature.

But perhaps you have some other thinking about this?

Regards, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 01-04-2017 at 04:15 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 01-04-2017, 10:59 AM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi Jeff,

I donīt know your background, perhaps it is the field of achademic literature. You seem to be very interested in how literature can create a starting point for understanding and interpreting the Whitechapel killer, rather than the Whitechapel murders. Is that correct? Or do you think that there is something to learn about the murders from the type of literature you are discussing here? If so, what can be learned?

My own interest is within sociology (apart from history) and as I see it, there is much more to learn about the killer and the murders from sociological perspectives than from literature written in Victorian times - and I also say this as an historian (!).

If you analyze the murders, using for example sociological theories about how knowledge is internalized / learned and how practice is externalized, you understand, on an individual level, that the structural networks and systems of society which bring about this learning and which allow for / make possible this practice, are useful for understanding the murders and also the killer. How?

Firstly, we can forget about inspiration from one or two books, and look at societies where people like the Whitechapel killer lived, where things similar to the things he did were done.

We can study learning processes and what types of knowledge people had. If you think that the killer had the knowledge and pratical ability for disembowelling and nosecutting, which he obviously had, he must have learned it somehow in some society and some situtation.

So, in what types of societies and situations in Victorian times, did people disembowel people, and in what types of societies and situations did they cut off noses?

And what social meaning had these types of practises? How can it be understood from a cultural perspective? And how can it throw light on the Whitechapel murders - and the killer?

Learning such behaviour is a long process. You see it being done, and/or having been done to people, you hear about it and think about it. Since you experience it in different ways, you learn how it is done. When you have done it yourself one time, you are able to do it several times.

But reading about murder and mutilation in a book is very far from knowing and practising murder and mutilation. It is a different thing if you see a murdered and mutilated body in real life, and if you also understand it as a cultural practise in your own immediate situation, you understand why it was done. That is something you do not get from literature.

But perhaps you have some other thinking about this?

Regards, Pierre
Okay Pierre, this is my personal set-up here.

1) I was a history and political science major in a college in New Jersey, and went on for a law degree in a law school in New York City. I never practiced law, but was a civil servant.

2) I love reading, and I might have had a minor in English in college, but I never got all the required courses.

3) My interest in the Whitechapel Murders is of a historical nature. By 2017 I do not really feel the identity of the brute will ever be absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that does not mean the case is without any interest to me at all - the cast of characters, and the events (grisly or not) that tie in with it, plus the setting in Victorian England, all fascinate me.
Hence when I traipse these threads my comments (when not being somewhat attempts at humor) are to correct or explain a historical aspect or trend.

4) As a side issue, since I really feel certain we won't ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the killer's real identity (anymore than historians of the politics of Georgian England in the 1770s are totally sure Sir Philip Francis wrote the notorious classic "Junius" letters about the politics of his day), I have never felt it necessary to push one of the "candidates" or one that I found (unless I am spoofing, as I have once or twice). In one of my first published essays, about Frederick Deeming, I entitled it "The Original Suspect", but while I dismissed some evidence against Deeming being the Ripper (that business from L.C. Douthwaite's comments in his book "Mass Murder") I actually pointed out that even if one accepted point by point what evidence one could muster, it was a shabby case against Deeming being the Ripper at best.

This does not mean I dismiss really first rate research attempts on subjects like Montie Druitt or Doc Tumblety or Roslyn D'Onston Stevenson. Each subject is quite interesting in his own right (as are figures like Kosminski, Deeming, Prince Eddy, Sickert, Maybrick*, Cream, Chapman, or Bury). Some ideas strike me as ridiculous (Vincent Van Gogh?), but I can appreciate the better suspects. Think of it this way (if you can) - by all the digging being done on this case and it's victims and suspects how much better are we understanding life in the Victorian world of 1888 Whitechapel, London, Great Britain, Europe, the World. It's expanded thus.

The only thing I ever found distasteful actually is the emphasis on the s.o.b. who did most of these atrocities (especially that on Mary Kelly). He (or she, if it was a woman) does not deserve center stage having caused such agony and horror. Therefore I have slowly slid into referring to the case as "The Whitechapel Murders", not "the Jack the Ripper Case" (restricting my use of the term to just a referral in passing to the killer). Personally I would really like to call the entire field "Whitechapel Studies", in order to partly honor the victims.

I don't know if any of this has helped you in understanding me, but it should make my point of view clearer to anyone reading this. Was there any book or play that fully guided the creep in what he did? No there wasn't. But an idea snatched from reading or a night at the theatre is another matter - it is an idea he or she could use in what already a festering plan. No more or less.

By the way, you mentioned "in what types of [Victorian] societies and situations did they cut off noses?" I can't think of any in Europe except for this. You are aware that the "nose" is a literary symbol for the male penis. Cutting off a nose in literature is like emasculating a man. And it actually does appear in 19th Century literature - Dostoievksi's short story satire, "The Nose", where a man finds his nose missing, everyone jeering at him, and later finds the nose has taken on a life of it's own.

[*Regarding James Maybrick, I am not one who believes that diary is genuine, anymore than if a letter addressed to his brother or to Mr. Valentine by Montie Druitt turned up "all of a sudden" in somebody's long lost desk, confessing his guilt - it's too convenient (in my opinion). But the Maybrick Case is interesting in it's own way (try reading Trevor Christie's old study, "Etched in Arsenic" if you are interested), about attitudes in Britain to Americans who become residents by marriage (Florence Chandler was from Alabama before she married James Maybrick), about servants real feelings concerning employers in households, about patent medicine dangers, about the legal world (with the faltering Justice Sir James Fitzjames Stephen trying the case after a nervous breakdown, and making a hash of it, and with Florence's barrister, Sir Charles Russell, being as unsuccessful saving her from a guilty verdict as he was in prosecuting and convicting Adelaide Bartlett in 1886 (when Russell was Attorney General) in the murder of her husband Edwin Bartlett by poison (and the evidence against Adelaide was stronger!). If the diary reopens interest in this fascinating case I'm for it.]

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 01-04-2017, 11:26 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayerling View Post
Okay Pierre, this is my personal set-up here.

1) I was a history and political science major in a college in New Jersey, and went on for a law degree in a law school in New York City. I never practiced law, but was a civil servant.

2) I love reading, and I might have had a minor in English in college, but I never got all the required courses.

3) My interest in the Whitechapel Murders is of a historical nature. By 2017 I do not really feel the identity of the brute will ever be absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that does not mean the case is without any interest to me at all - the cast of characters, and the events (grisly or not) that tie in with it, plus the setting in Victorian England, all fascinate me.
Hence when I traipse these threads my comments (when not being somewhat attempts at humor) are to correct or explain a historical aspect or trend.

4) As a side issue, since I really feel certain we won't ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the killer's real identity (anymore than historians of the politics of Georgian England in the 1770s are totally sure Sir Philip Francis wrote the notorious classic "Junius" letters about the politics of his day), I have never felt it necessary to push one of the "candidates" or one that I found (unless I am spoofing, as I have once or twice). In one of my first published essays, about Frederick Deeming, I entitled it "The Original Suspect", but while I dismissed some evidence against Deeming being the Ripper (that business from L.C. Douthwaite's comments in his book "Mass Murder") I actually pointed out that even if one accepted point by point what evidence one could muster, it was a shabby case against Deeming being the Ripper at best.

This does not mean I dismiss really first rate research attempts on subjects like Montie Druitt or Doc Tumblety or Roslyn D'Onston Stevenson. Each subject is quite interesting in his own right (as are figures like Kosminski, Deeming, Prince Eddy, Sickert, Maybrick*, Cream, Chapman, or Bury). Some ideas strike me as ridiculous (Vincent Van Gogh?), but I can appreciate the better suspects. Think of it this way (if you can) - by all the digging being done on this case and it's victims and suspects how much better are we understanding life in the Victorian world of 1888 Whitechapel, London, Great Britain, Europe, the World. It's expanded thus.

The only thing I ever found distasteful actually is the emphasis on the s.o.b. who did most of these atrocities (especially that on Mary Kelly). He (or she, if it was a woman) does not deserve center stage having caused such agony and horror. Therefore I have slowly slid into referring to the case as "The Whitechapel Murders", not "the Jack the Ripper Case" (restricting my use of the term to just a referral in passing to the killer). Personally I would really like to call the entire field "Whitechapel Studies", in order to partly honor the victims.

I don't know if any of this has helped you in understanding me, but it should make my point of view clearer to anyone reading this. Was there any book or play that fully guided the creep in what he did? No there wasn't. But an idea snatched from reading or a night at the theatre is another matter - it is an idea he or she could use in what already a festering plan. No more or less.

By the way, you mentioned "in what types of [Victorian] societies and situations did they cut off noses?" I can't think of any in Europe except for this. You are aware that the "nose" is a literary symbol for the male penis. Cutting off a nose in literature is like emasculating a man. And it actually does appear in 19th Century literature - Dostoievksi's short story satire, "The Nose", where a man finds his nose missing, everyone jeering at him, and later finds the nose has taken on a life of it's own.

[*Regarding James Maybrick, I am not one who believes that diary is genuine, anymore than if a letter addressed to his brother or to Mr. Valentine by Montie Druitt turned up "all of a sudden" in somebody's long lost desk, confessing his guilt - it's too convenient (in my opinion). But the Maybrick Case is interesting in it's own way (try reading Trevor Christie's old study, "Etched in Arsenic" if you are interested), about attitudes in Britain to Americans who become residents by marriage (Florence Chandler was from Alabama before she married James Maybrick), about servants real feelings concerning employers in households, about patent medicine dangers, about the legal world (with the faltering Justice Sir James Fitzjames Stephen trying the case after a nervous breakdown, and making a hash of it, and with Florence's barrister, Sir Charles Russell, being as unsuccessful saving her from a guilty verdict as he was in prosecuting and convicting Adelaide Bartlett in 1886 (when Russell was Attorney General) in the murder of her husband Edwin Bartlett by poison (and the evidence against Adelaide was stronger!). If the diary reopens interest in this fascinating case I'm for it.]

Jeff
Hi Mayer
a while back we were discussing the closing of the anatomical "Venus" display at a museum in London just prior to the start of the torso cases.
and wondering if this might have had any impact or inspiration on the killer.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 01-04-2017, 11:37 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayerling View Post
Hi Pierre,

Yes, but not in the Jewish Bible - the Book of Judges in the Old Testament has Deborah as an exception to the rule. So Judges (especially Jewish ones) are not exclusively male.

Jeff
Hi Jeff,

but judges were men in England 1888.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 01-04-2017, 11:51 AM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi Jeff,

but judges were men in England 1888.

Regards, Pierre
Hi Pierre,

True enough

From you academician

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-04-2017, 11:53 AM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi Mayer
a while back we were discussing the closing of the anatomical "Venus" display at a museum in London just prior to the start of the torso cases.
and wondering if this might have had any impact or inspiration on the killer.
Hi Abby,

It could have. It may not have turned the person into a violent one, but he may have had it under control by seeing the anatomical display.

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-04-2017, 12:17 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Mayerling;405394]

Quote:
Okay Pierre, this is my personal set-up here.

1) I was a history and political science major in a college in New Jersey, and went on for a law degree in a law school in New York City. I never practiced law, but was a civil servant.

2) I love reading, and I might have had a minor in English in college, but I never got all the required courses.
Hi Jeff,

So you did study literature, great.

Quote:
3) My interest in the Whitechapel Murders is of a historical nature. By 2017 I do not really feel the identity of the brute will ever be absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that does not mean the case is without any interest to me at all - the cast of characters, and the events (grisly or not) that tie in with it, plus the setting in Victorian England, all fascinate me.
How interesting, and what a good description. I myself have a very different relation to the case. I always see the "cast of characters" you describe here as real life suffering people. I see them as terribly oppressed people in a terrible society. Many of them were forced into criminality and as I see it, their own characters were destroyed by the society they had to live in.

But there are other aspects of these times and other stories that I have come across during my own research which actually makes the small piece of history - i.e. the usual history of "Jack the Ripper" a much more interesting and advanced history. At least that is what happened when I started researching the case. I had to go beyond the small space of Whitechapel.

Anyway, I find that the case is often romanticized and that is a very serious problem since it creates all sorts of ripperologic ideas. It also tends to blurr the view and make people miss and misinterpret important sources.
Quote:
Hence when I traipse these threads my comments (when not being somewhat attempts at humor) are to correct or explain a historical aspect or trend.
Quote:
4) As a side issue, since I really feel certain we won't ever prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the killer's real identity (anymore than historians of the politics of Georgian England in the 1770s are totally sure Sir Philip Francis wrote the notorious classic "Junius" letters about the politics of his day), I have never felt it necessary to push one of the "candidates" or one that I found (unless I am spoofing, as I have once or twice). In one of my first published essays, about Frederick Deeming, I entitled it "The Original Suspect", but while I dismissed some evidence against Deeming being the Ripper (that business from L.C. Douthwaite's comments in his book "Mass Murder") I actually pointed out that even if one accepted point by point what evidence one could muster, it was a shabby case against Deeming being the Ripper at best.
Quote:
This does not mean I dismiss really first rate research attempts on subjects like Montie Druitt or Doc Tumblety or Roslyn D'Onston Stevenson. Each subject is quite interesting in his own right (as are figures like Kosminski, Deeming, Prince Eddy, Sickert, Maybrick*, Cream, Chapman, or Bury). Some ideas strike me as ridiculous (Vincent Van Gogh?), but I can appreciate the better suspects. Think of it this way (if you can) - by all the digging being done on this case and it's victims and suspects how much better are we understanding life in the Victorian world of 1888 Whitechapel, London, Great Britain, Europe, the World. It's expanded thus.
Well, I agree with you that the case generates knowledge about Victorian society and the British Empire but that is also done without writing about Jack the Ripper.

Quote:
The only thing I ever found distasteful actually is the emphasis on the s.o.b. who did most of these atrocities (especially that on Mary Kelly). He (or she, if it was a woman) does not deserve center stage having caused such agony and horror. Therefore I have slowly slid into referring to the case as "The Whitechapel Murders", not "the Jack the Ripper Case" (restricting my use of the term to just a referral in passing to the killer). Personally I would really like to call the entire field "Whitechapel Studies", in order to partly honor the victims.
Yes, I agree with you. There are a lot of ethical problems and one has to deal with oneīs own relation to the murders when one researches them. A main reason I go on with this is the victims.

Quote:
I don't know if any of this has helped you in understanding me, but it should make my point of view clearer to anyone reading this.
I think you have made it very clear how you approach the case and I appreciate that you have considered the ethical problems inherit in it.

Quote:
Was there any book or play that fully guided the creep in what he did? No there wasn't. But an idea snatched from reading or a night at the theatre is another matter - it is an idea he or she could use in what already a festering plan. No more or less.
As I understand the case, the killer had very strong personal reasons for doing what he did, as he saw it. He thought that he could justify what he did, but he also knew that he did wrong and later in his life that did affect him. I would say that what he did constituted a very big ethical conflict for him. But the conflict was just about himself and not about the victims.

Quote:
By the way, you mentioned "in what types of [Victorian] societies and situations did they cut off noses?" I can't think of any in Europe except for this. You are aware that the "nose" is a literary symbol for the male penis. Cutting off a nose in literature is like emasculating a man. And it actually does appear in 19th Century literature - Dostoievksi's short story satire, "The Nose", where a man finds his nose missing, everyone jeering at him, and later finds the nose has taken on a life of it's own.
Well, that sounds like a freudian analysis for the phenomenon. But nose cutting has a history and it is connected to honour. I prefer not to discuss it here but to refer to my earlier posts about it. But let me say that the killer was about to lose face, i.e. his honour.

Quote:
[*Regarding James Maybrick, I am not one who believes that diary is genuine, anymore than if a letter addressed to his brother or to Mr. Valentine by Montie Druitt turned up "all of a sudden" in somebody's long lost desk, confessing his guilt - it's too convenient (in my opinion). But the Maybrick Case is interesting in it's own way (try reading Trevor Christie's old study, "Etched in Arsenic" if you are interested), about attitudes in Britain to Americans who become residents by marriage (Florence Chandler was from Alabama before she married James Maybrick), about servants real feelings concerning employers in households, about patent medicine dangers, about the legal world (with the faltering Justice Sir James Fitzjames Stephen trying the case after a nervous breakdown, and making a hash of it, and with Florence's barrister, Sir Charles Russell, being as unsuccessful saving her from a guilty verdict as he was in prosecuting and convicting Adelaide Bartlett in 1886 (when Russell was Attorney General) in the murder of her husband Edwin Bartlett by poison (and the evidence against Adelaide was stronger!). If the diary reopens interest in this fascinating case I'm for it.]
Well, I donīt know anything about this "diary". I have been trying to find it online to read it but found just a few pages.

Anyway, I do see that literature can be used to create a specific understanding of the case and the history around it.

Best wishes, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 01-04-2017 at 12:23 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-08-2017, 10:45 AM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,688
Default

Hi Pierre,

I never bothered with getting the "Diary", but I suspect if you were willing to buy it you can find it on Amazon, or even a reasonably good second-hand book shop.

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.