What is a ripperologist?

[mariab]

Nice one, Maria. Never saw that old thread.

Here's the thread in question: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1445&page=2&highlight=You%27re+a+ Ripperologist+if

[Steven Russell]

Cheers, Maria.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[The Grave Maurice]

I think a Ripperologist is someone who reads and thinks about JtR over an extended period of time, bearing in mind that we all have other interests. Publications, in my view, are not part of the definition: unfortunately, many people have published on this subject who know very little about it. Chris is right that it was Wilson who coined the term, and we're stuck with it. And, if Stan Reid isn't a Ripperologist, then none of us is.

[sleekviper]

Ripperologists are close to the number given by Lynn, and thus low. The rest of us are Jackals, scavenging through the Ripperologists and historical findings to locate that tasty morsel of missed facts that will elevate us past the den of canine baring wolves, to the height of Ripperologists. Well, could have said donkeys since a male is called a Jack, but the other term may offend some.

[sdreid]

Who would be the Mount Rushmore of Ripperologists? Sugden-Begg-Evans-Rumbelow?

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[mariab]

Who would be the Mount Rushmore of Ripperologists? Sugden-Begg-Evans-Rumbelow?

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.

[lynn cates]

publish or perish

Hello Maria. Listen to Tom. Would you think much of a professor who did not publish in his or her field?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hello Maria. Listen to Tom. Would you think much of a professor who did not publish in his or her field?

Of course not, Lynn, but then Ripperology started as a non academic field, though it might become one in the near future. 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. In fact in the last decade the tendency for the serious Ripperologists is to rather produce articles than books, which in my opinion is related to Ripperology getting increasingly “minimalistic“ and moving away from suspectology. However, which group would you choose over the other, the ones publishing whatever or the true specialists?

Reading a book on Egypt doesn't make someone an Egyptologist, but conducting years long research on/in Egypt does it, even if one hasn't authored a book (yet). Of course the main difference between a Ripperologist and an Egyptologist is than an Egyptologist went to school while a Ripperologist is essentially self-taught – or better said, taught at home by the community!

[Steelysama]

The question of who is a ripperologist is extremely subjective, given that it involves no official credentials.

My wife is a physicist. She gets to be called a physicist by virtue of the fact that she graduated with a PhD in the field of Physics. She has also had peer-reviewed papers published.

There is no degree in ripperology, nor is there any form of certification or accreditation. There is also, as far as I know, no academic peer-review process. At least, not in the sense that a scientific publication will require.

Therefore, it either becomes entirely subjective and we start choosing who gets to be a ripperologist based upon whether or not we respect their work or else we have to find some reasonably objective means of classification. Lynn and I are suggesting that being published - whether in the form of a paper or the form of a book - is a fair enough qualification. And yes publishing a paper in a respectable venue would count for that.

From there we can then argue whether a given author is a "good" ripperlogist or not

[Barnaby]

I'm a Ph.D.psychologist who works in academia and actively follows Casebook.org. I suspect that I know more about Jack the Ripper than 90% of lay people, but I would never claim that I was a Ripperologist. I am an educated follower of the field. Maybe someday that will change.

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. In the end it is a bit subjective and a bit of an "old boys' club." But perhaps that is actually the best criterion we have at the moment: Identify Ripperologists whose credentials are not in dispute and ask them whose work they respect.

[John Bennett]

I would say a 'Ripperologist' is somebody who not only knows the ins and outs and the fineries of the subject, but importantly somebody who also attempts research or theorising of their own in an attempt to further the field or just their own understanding. In that respect, I would class Patricia Cornwell as one, regardless of what we think about her outcomes.

Somebody who has read a book or two doesn't really constitute a Ripperologist.

And whether they have published on the subject is immaterial, in my view. There are lots of people on the message boards for example who obviously STUDY this case in depth and have not published anything.

[Steelysama]

I'm a Ph.D.psychologist who works in academia and actively follows Casebook.org. I suspect that I know more about Jack the Ripper than 90% of lay people, but I would never claim that I was a Ripperologist. I am an educated follower of the field. Maybe someday that will change.

That is pretty cool. I would imagine that your psychology background offers some interesting thoughts as to what kind of person might have committed the Ripper crimes.

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. In the end it is a bit subjective and a bit of an "old boys' club." But perhaps that is actually the best criterion we have at the moment: Identify Ripperologists whose credentials are not in dispute and ask them whose work they respect.

Well, in the end, the community is the defining factor in this. And it does seem like a lot of the community is supporting what you describe above. There are certainly some good reasons behind it.

I do like the idea also of seeing whose work the recognized experts respect. That is a very insightful thought.

[lynn cates]

necessary; sufficient

Hello Maria. I note what you say about bad publications. So let's say that publishing on the "Ripper" is a necessary but NOT sufficient condition for being a ripperologist.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

good; bad

Hello Steely. Excellent qualification.

So then there are good ripperologists and those who are not so good.

Cheers.
LC