What is a ripperologist?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. I find your comments below contradictory.

There are a couple of reason's why any student of the case might choose not to publish. Facts are very limited, once you have books like the Ultimate, A-Z, etc., & Newspaper articles widely available there is precious little of substance left to pursue without resorting to 'suspect' theories.

Ripper studies are in a constant state of flux, some theories and 'assumed' facts can be overturned by the next newly discovered newspaper article.
A good number of books wrote a decade ago are now out of date and some conclusions arrived at are clearly wrong.

I agree that new finds are made every day...and these are made predominantly by Ripperologists. The people who wrote those outdated books from 10 years ago were for the most part Ripperologists. The sideliners you mention who do not research but only read what's published are perhaps budding Ripperologists, but as you point out, when you publish, you could perish. Those playing it 'safe' as you say can't and shouldn't be considered alongside those in the trench.

I also think it's a circular argument to say 'why bother publishing research when new research could come along rendering it valueless'. Your suggestion would seem to be don't research, and if you do, keep it to yourself. That's definitely not how a Ripperologist thinks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

... Someone who doesn't publish either feels they have nothing of value to say or is simply studying the case for their own interest, and while there's nothing wrong with that, they're hardly an 'ologist'.

That sounds like a very narrow perspective.

There are a couple of reason's why any student of the case might choose not to publish. Facts are very limited, once you have books like the Ultimate, A-Z, etc., & Newspaper articles widely available there is precious little of substance left to pursue without resorting to 'suspect' theories.

We can always research the background of central figures; Reid, Abberline, Dr's Phillips, Bond, etc., or the lives & family tree of the victims, but this is all peripheral to the central theme, and not to everyone's interest.

Ripper studies are in a constant state of flux, some theories and 'assumed' facts can be overturned by the next newly discovered newspaper article.
A good number of books wrote a decade ago are now out of date and some conclusions arrived at are clearly wrong.
I think we have all written something in the past which we would sooner not be associated with today. If that 'something' had been in bookform then you will carry that like a millstone around your neck for the rest of your life.

On the other hand there are what might be called 'safe-studies'. A complete bibliography of all the Ripper books ever published or, of all the Ripper movies ever made. Are we trying to fill a void in Ripper studies, to satisfy a definite need or, are we just trying to get our name in print?

Because there is no certification behind the title of Ripperologist then debating it's parameters is pointless. The apellative refers to students of the case either part-time or full-time as opposed to those with a general interest in criminology. Whether anything is published is irrelevent.

Regards, Jon S.

[John Bennett]

I'm completely satisfied with the above definition.

It's interesting that John Bennett considers Cornwell a Ripperologist, but would he go as far as to consider Trenouth as one as well?

Well, Trenouth has 'studied' the crimes enough to produce two theory-based books on the subject. I'd therefore say yes, but of course there are different levels and layers of Ripperology, surely? Have you read them? If so, you can't fail to have an opinion!

I would certainly count Mei Trow as a Ripperologist, yet his first book was regarded well and his Mann book, less so. In the end, if you choose to write up your analyses/studies, whether it be by book, article or forum, you will be judged in some way, positively or negatively. Stephen Knight's Royal-Masonic conspiracy is roundly dismissed, yet he did make some significant discoveries through his early access to the official files.

I guess it's down to others to state whether what is produced is of any value to Ripperology.

[Tom_Wescott]

Oh, you mean Cris Malone? I forget that they're one and the same. No, I don't believe he's published yet, but as you mentioned, that cherry will soon be broken.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Tom,
Do you happen to know that Hunter has published under his real name? I know he's preparing an article pertaining to Fanny Mortimer, and I'm very much looking forward to reading it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria,

What makes you think Hunter hasn't published under his real name, or isn't fully intending to? Have you talked with him about this or are jumping to yet more conclusions about people and their research?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Mount Rippermore

If we wanted to build a 'Mount Rushmore', based on the field as it is today, that would be a tough one. Or maybe not. Personally, I think real Ripperology began in roughly 1987 with the publication of Martin Fido's book, followed by Begg's 'The Uncensored Facts' in 1988 (the ONLY Ripper book published in the centenary year). These two authors are possibly the first 'real' Ripperologists as they set the pace we now follow. Along with uber-researcher, Keith Skinner, they produced the A-Z in 1991, further raising the bar. This is not to overlook people such as Rumbelow, Wilson, and Odell, who I think of as proto-Ripperologists. They were ahead of their time and crucially influential. The next superstar of Ripperology was, of course, Stewart P Evans, who wrote (along with the reclusive Paul Gainey) what I'd like to think is the most influential 'suspect' book of all time and then not only raised the research bar, but demolished it, with 'Ultimate', 'Letters from Hell', 'Man Who Hunted JTR', etc. Philip Sugden wrote a must-have tome, that's for sure, but I still think that if we HAD to pick four faces for a Mount Rushmore, it would have to be Fido, Begg, Skinner, and Evans.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Mal, I'm not sure any of the rest of us see ourselves as 'Ripper fans'.

[mariab]

Profound apologies, Stephen Ryder.

We essentially all agree then, also in the fact that some extremely well-informed Ripperologists (like casebook poster Hunter) might be only moderately interested in publishing. On the other side, and especially since Ripperology has recently been moving away from suspectology, I don't see it as a requirement that one would need to formulate their own theory to be considered as a proper Ripperologist. There are all the “reductionists“ out there who are delivering important findings and helping the field advance.
I consider the fact that Ripperology has moved away from suspectology a very positive development. This helps Ripperology distance itself from the mere popular “whodunnit“ part, helping the field become more academic in an interdisciplinary sense, and encouraging just the essential suspect-oriented books to get published.

[Carol]

As a relative newcomer to Casebook and the Ripper mystery I tend to think of a Ripperologist as someone who has studied the case in great detail, whether as an amateur or a professional. He or she doesn't need to have published anything but is very knowledgeable and helpful to the rest of us.

I'm still being pushed around in my pram.

Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, they've ALL published articles, and Stephen (not Steven) Ryder has published a book, 'Public Reactions'. And I don't think anyone said anything about books, just publishing. Someone who doesn't publish either feels they have nothing of value to say or is simply studying the case for their own interest, and while there's nothing wrong with that, they're hardly an 'ologist'. Now that certainly does not mean that everyone who's published on the case is a Ripperologist because that's clearly not the case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I have heard then simply referred to as "Anoraks" which probabaly no one outside The UK will be able to relate to

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm so sorry to disagree with you on this, but there are TONS of Ripperological books out there which are pure crap (Cornwell, Trenouth, the one about Robert Man) while there are distinguished Ripperologists who have not published a book yet, as Debra Arif, Monty/Neil Bell, Steven Ryder, Howard Brown, etc., though most of them have published articles.

Actually, they've ALL published articles, and Stephen (not Steven) Ryder has published a book, 'Public Reactions'. And I don't think anyone said anything about books, just publishing. Someone who doesn't publish either feels they have nothing of value to say or is simply studying the case for their own interest, and while there's nothing wrong with that, they're hardly an 'ologist'. Now that certainly does not mean that everyone who's published on the case is a Ripperologist because that's clearly not the case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

To me, you have to make a notable contribution to the field in order to be considered a Ripperologist. In most cases this would entail peer-reviewed published works. However, I could see how some published authors might not be considered Ripperologists (Cornwell), and how some avid Casebook posters who have yet to publish might.

I'm completely satisfied with the above definition.

It's interesting that John Bennett considers Cornwell a Ripperologist, but would he go as far as to consider Trenouth as one as well?
Also, I'm pretty sure that Philip Sugden would vehemently deny defining himself as a Ripperologist, as his interest in the case was limited in time. And yet he has produced one of the best documented books in the field, for its time anyway.

[Malcolm X]

finally, having a fav suspect screws you up, it gives you tunnel vision and blinds you to other possibilities, i was a far better poster years ago before i favoured GH.

strangely enough, i had better arguements as a G.Chapman fan too, because he fits perfectly where GH fails totally ( GH falls flat on his face after 1889, we all know that)

because any Ripper fan has to look most carefully after 1889, because this aftermath period is the oddest and hardest to explain away.

someone here needs to explain why JTR suddenly stopped mutilating or any other murders after 1889, because not having a really good excuse for this will undermine your suspect, because he will only ever switch his M.O/SIG, he will never stop killing.

thus for me, you saying he died/ went insane is far too easy for you, it can not be this

[Malcolm X]

I guess the bible would be Sugden, and the scriptures The Ultimate. And SPE the doyen of the scriptures.
Lynn is most clearly not correct here about published work. Otherwise, Cornwell should be considered a Ripperologist and Hunter not? Right on.

Sugden has missed out loads of stuff, he hasn't mentioned any of the witness statements after the 10th november, great book but does not contain nearly enough information

[Malcolm X]

Hi all. Colin Wilson had no negative connotations to the word when he coined it. And I agree that one would have to not only read and researcher but publish on the subject for the word to fit. Reading a book on Egypt does not make one an Egyptologist. As most Ripperologists hold interest in other cases as well, perhaps the term 'criminologist' is more favored and less nerdy. But I for one don't find 'Ripperologist' embarrassing or offensive if someone else should call me that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

i'm very careful that i dont mention being a Ripper fan to outsiders, it gives the wrong impression if you mention it, they think you're a weirdo, i wonder if others have noticed this too