The New Vogue

[Gideon Fell]

Well folks it seems that the vogue in Ripperology is no longer to dismiss suspects as Jack the Ripper. No the new vogue is to dismiss suspects as being suspects. We have seen Druitt, D'Onston and Tumblety dismissed as suspects - they weren't suspects at all. So who shall we choose next?

[Gideon Fell]

I think that we should consider the words of an old friend of mine.



Aha! Is this where the Lewis Carroll theory started?

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, Gideon, I don't know about anything being a 'vogue', and feel perhaps a better choice of word would have been 'vague'.
For that is what this is all precisely about, reassembling people from history in the age of the information highway in a precise and historically correct manner using the wealth of material we now possess... which we didn't way back then when these people were first discovered and floated before us as characters in the Whitechapel Murders.
Most of these characters were typified by an enormous vagueness, which allowed writers and researchers to exercise their imagination in an attempt to give these characters the solid history they severely lacked.
What should be happening of course is not happening, in that as new material is discovered on these characters then that information should be firming up, and confirming the vague idea that so and so could have been the Whitechapel Murderer, but in fact we see the opposite happening in almost every case.
The only suspect who appears to have been firmed up by the discovery of new material does seem to be Thomas Cutbush, with some recent finds by Robert, casting some very serious doubts on his swift removal from court at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
I don't believe it to do any good to shake our fists at the sky and apportion blame for this situation, which after all is a very helpful one.

[Dan Norder]

Apparently the new vogue is attacking the motives of people who provide evidence that inconveniently gets in the way of a pet theory instead of trying to find actual evidence to support that theory.

Oh, wait, that's not new at all. Sorry.

[Howard Brown]

Well folks it seems that the vogue in Ripperology is no longer to dismiss suspects as Jack the Ripper. No the new vogue is to dismiss suspects as being suspects. We have seen Druitt, D'Onston and Tumblety dismissed as suspects - they weren't suspects at all. So who shall we choose next?

Mentioned here,either tongue in cheek or in a serious tone, D'onston, since you mentioned him among this trio, isn't a suspect anymore. He was back in the days when dinosaurs ruled the boards and there was no one to provide solid and substantial evidence to counter their claims effectively.

Let me ask you this,Gideon...if your post was made in a serious tone and you don't understand the basis of Stephenson being a police suspect in 1888 ( for two days at tops..if even that ) rests entirely on his behavior in front of George Marsh...and that the Cremers Memoirs are unverifiable as even having emanated from the woman...then what would you counter with?

I won't take up anymore space here about RDS...but I'm always ready to debate the issue with you or anyone in long pants. Thank you. I believe you know where to reach me.

[aspallek]

Apparently the new vogue is attacking the motives of people who provide evidence that inconveniently gets in the way of a pet theory instead of trying to find actual evidence to support that theory.

Oh, wait, that's not new at all. Sorry.

While motives should not be attacked without good reason, new evidence for or against a suspect should be brought into the public forum in a timely fashion and should be examined and challenged in that forum.

[Mr Poster]

I agree with Aspallek.

If evidence is discovered, once verified, it should be presented in a timely fashion in an appropriate forum.

Which boils down to either on the forum, in a book, or in one of the ripper magazines.

Putting it in a book is a long standing method that earns the author cash.

Im not sure what the point of putting it in one of the magazines is.

And the forum is obviously the best place if one adheres to APW's notions.

As to eliminating suspects.................I cannot see the problem with that at all. If informtion exists that removes someone as suspect....then so be it.

p

[aspallek]

Publishing it in a journal gains the author/researcher recognition. I chose that route for my most recent discovery (Farquharson) and kept silent about it on the boards. On some earlier, less significant, finds (those concerning Lonsdale primarily), I discussed them on the forums first and then had them published in journals.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Aspallek

IM not sure that publishing in the "journals' gains one anything.

Lets say you discovered a cure for cancer. Then it would be published in a journal. Whereby it gains the implied QA of peer review.

Publishing in a "journal" with no peer review (and by peer review I do not mean proof reading) gains very little for the author.

Now of course the latest trend is from blind review to open review. Whereby the paper or info is presenetd in open forum before appearing in the journal, open for all and not blind. So the reviw process is even more robust. Which would be the equivalent of sticking it one the forum here so all can check.

If it survives and is confiirmed by the review process (open discussion in this case) then it appears for posterity in the journal.

So, quite honestly, pubslihing in the Ripper magzines (the word "journal" implies something Im not sure the magazines can deliver) doesnt to my mind confer anything really apart from a sense of personal satisfaction or something.

I am of course looking forward to the swollen chested indignancy of various personages as they lumber forward to attest with solemn self-belief as to the appropriateness of the label "journal" for their various periodicals.

p

[Cap'n Jack]

Quite right, Mr P, publishing something in a Ripper rag is a very safe and secure way of doing things, the heat doesn't apply.
But publish something here, in the real world, then by golly and gosh you have got to be able to support it, for the heat is on.
I like the heat on.

[aspallek]

Well, we are not here talking about anything so significant as publishing cures for cancer or other medical papers. Publishing the results of one's Ripper research in a journal establishes "ownership" of that research, more so than these forums can, and places the information into the public forum for review.

As to the difference between a magazine and a journal, I don't know the dictionary definition of either. In my mind a magazine has entertainment or general news as its main purpose and supports itself primarily by liberally selling advertising space. A journal has information, usually more well-researched and documented in a more academic style, and does not support itself primarily by advertising.

[Robert]

Hmm. The new vogue seems to be people whom I knew under one name, posting messages under a completely different name.

It's all rather confusing.

Yours truly

Troy Tempest

[Cap'n Jack]

Nice one, Robert... or should that be Troy?
Yes, it is surprising that so many of us seem to suffer from multiple personality disorder 'round 'ere.

[Mike Covell]

I was the artist known as mcebe, a name i used in my days when i was a regular on the pirate radio scene.

I thought using my own name would do away with the mystery, but it seem's all i have achieved is the lable of "Faulty Researcher"!!

[Dan Norder]

Publishing in the magazines is the best sort of peer review there is: First there's the editors, which at least in the case of Ripper Notes (the only one whose internal workings I am familiar with) means a very thorough examination of the content itself and not mere copy editing (and certainly exceeds the attention paid to the content at many academic journals and even many books). Then there are the readers, who have already demonstrated a serious interest in the case and ultimately decide which information presented should stand the test of time. Our readers include all the major authors of books and encyclopedias on this topic, and certainly that's their best source for learning the results of new research.

The magazines are the middle ground between books and just chatting with other people. Things which aren't long or detailed enough to be full books but are too in depth or important for the boards fit quite comfortably there. There's also the huge problem of the boards churning through posts and things getting lost, multiple people (ones who are new to the field or who don't read the magazines) trying to take credit for the same discoveries other people made years before, people interrupting the flow of a discussion with off topic comments or personal insults, and so forth. Internet posts have their place, but they are limited in very many ways which should be pretty obvious.

So, we know that A.P. Wolf (Cap'n Jack) and Mr. P aren't the intended audience of the magazines, and, in fact, I think, based upon the contents of their posts on this site, that's probably one of the better endorsements any publication could get.