Is it right?

[mpriestnall]

Note to self: When writing the MS avoid over-long rambling sentences!

[mpriestnall]

Asking for huge backlash on that one!

I have these rushes of blood to my head, what can I say!

But TBH my research has gone beyond my expectations. I've struggled for a long time with the conflict of wanting share hints about my research and doing what I know I should do and stay schtumm.

I have shared some info with some people at the Whitechapel Society interim meeting back in pre-pandemic days where it was more prudent to do so and will probably do again, when they meet up again face-to-face, but with the pandemic persisting, the WS are still all Zoom-happy, which is fair enough but it is also not a suitable forum for me to share anything, unfortunately.

So roll-on the next WS interim meeting! Are you reading this Ratters!

Martyn

[Scott Nelson]

It sounds like I'm in trouble then. With the big boss.

[caz]

Hi erobitha,

I wouldn't say laws are above morals, or vice versa, but rather that legality and morality are different independent dimensions by which one can address the issue. That quibble aside, I believe you are correct and that legally in countries that are based upon English law one cannot slander the dead. However, I don't know if that is the case in all countries, though, and so would suggest that even a legal approach has it's subjective side to it as one has to put it in the context of a particular legal system. That's similar to how moral arguments are based upon a particular framework of morality. In my view, slandering someone is amoral because it is destructive to the truth. And I believe that advancement, and improvements, in all things are more quickly and accurately found when one has at hand reality based information (meaning true information). Therefore, misrepresentation of reality results in unnecessary delays and worse decisions being made, both of which lead to more negative consequences that could have been avoided (which is what to me makes misrepresentation of reality immoral, it causes unnecessary and avoidable damage).

It's probably easier to consider the issue through the flip side. In many ways what we're talking about is similar to exposing the actual misdeeds of past historical figures that have been masked. It is considered important to rectify the historical record despite the fact they are long dead and so cannot be directly punished for their misdeeds. In this thread we're simply reversing that idea, imposing fictional misdeeds and covering up actual innocence rather than exposing factual misdeeds that were covered up by false innocence. Anyway, that's where I see the moral issue entering into it despite the lack of any legal transgression (under English law). But again, that all comes from a particular viewpoint that morality is evaluated based upon knowingly doing something that has the potential for inflicting unnecessary harm. (note, a past figure that did what they thought was best even though we may now know that their actions are not the best option cannot be said to have been acting in an immoral manner, but someone today could do the same action and be judged differently because we now know better options exist). Of course, it may be hard to know how misrepresenting the life of someone long dead could lead to poor decisions that end up unnecessarily damaging anything this many years later, but it really would not surprise me if examples could be found where that has happened, and that suggests to me it has a real potential for some unnecessary harm.

As for your own work, given you describe it as being fictional, then the intent is very different. You're not presenting it as a non-fictional account, even though you are researching for historical accuracy. That's just doing the hard yards necessary to create a good story, and should be applauded.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

In a nutshell, if the ripper was never suspected at the time, and was someone whose name would be unknown to us today, it would follow that everyone who has ever been fingered by theorists, authors, researchers or the top cops in the LVP alike, was innocent of these murders and didn't deserve to have their name and character dragged through the historical mud. Even if the ripper is lurking among all those whose names have been put forward from 1888 to date, that makes all but one them entirely innocent.

So one could argue that just because the libel and slander laws can't touch the modern theorist, that doesn't make it less unsavoury to play pin the tail on the donkey. And I'm afraid I don't entirely agree with those who think there is a moral high ground they can adopt simply because their preferred suspect a) was suspected at the time by someone in authority, or b) was convicted of an unrelated crime, including murder, or c) was a victim's partner, such as Kidney or Barnett, or d) was 'found' at one of the crime scenes by the next man to come along.

Without the kind of evidence against any individual that would stand a chance of holding up in court, I don't see why it is necessarily any more justified to accuse someone from a) to d), over anyone else whose status would be 'presumed innocent but can't be ruled out'. In fact, there might be even less justification to accuse anyone in the above categories who was considered at the time, but cleared or not pursued.

Love,

Caz
X

[Astatine211]

I predict Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly will be identified, in the reasonably near future, and there will be more evidence to back up their identification than you shake a walking stick at!

Feel free to hold me to this!

This is very exciting. Is there a time estimate for when this new info will be revealed?

[paul g]

Well as much as I would like the case solved I am of the opinion there is not one jot of unknown evidence that will identify the killer.
I wish and hope to be proved wrong .

[Michael W Richards]

I predict Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly will be identified, in the reasonably near future, and there will be more evidence to back up their identification than you shake a walking stick at!

Feel free to hold me to this!

Asking for huge backlash on that one!

[Michael W Richards]

Is it right to build a case against a person with very little actual evidence/no real evidence/very flimsy evidence for being the Ripper? Or are we better to stick to suspects that were suspected at the time or are proven murderers that were around at the time and can be proven to be in London in 1888?

We are much better off if we stick to Persons of Interest, because technically there is not enough evidence in any Canonical murder to call anyone a legitimate "Suspect". Our suspect list, like any Suspect list for JtR, does not adhere to traditional requirements for a true Suspect categorization.

[Ms Diddles]

I predict Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly will be identified, in the reasonably near future, and there will be more evidence to back up their identification than you shake a walking stick at!

Feel free to hold me to this!

Oooohh! Do you know something we don't?

[MrBarnett]

I predict Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly will be identified, in the reasonably near future, and there will be more evidence to back up their identification than you shake a walking stick at!

Feel free to hold me to this!

Can you give us a teeny tiny clue?

[mpriestnall]

I predict Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly will be identified, in the reasonably near future, and there will be more evidence to back up their identification than you shake a walking stick at!

Feel free to hold me to this!

[mpriestnall]

Well, look at Henry DeFries, the gas-fitter at 7 Middlesex Street. It could have been him, but will we ever really know?

I've always had my doubts about Henry Defries and the more I think the matter over...

[erobitha]

Just to add a little contrast to RJ’s comments, I proffer the idea that “crackpots” are not necessarily believing “they know better than the police” of that time. They simply have access to knowledge, data and technology that was not in existence in 1888. It is useful to bring that to the table.

Secondly, you can argue many “traditional” suspects are somewhat modern anyway. In the respect we hear only of them decades or more after the murders. Depends on the date of cut off of when you accept them as being of that time and on what basis.

I rely heavily on the work that has been done by researchers like Skinner, Begg, Fido et el - it is their discipline that allows “Mavericks” like myself to see if the dots can be connected in some way. It’s not that I am the only who sees the dots, just I might just be crazy enough to connect them up.

Of course I speak only of myself. Being a Maverick is solitary work.

[rjpalmer]

Is it right to build a case against a person with very little actual evidence/no real evidence/very flimsy evidence for being the Ripper? Or are we better to stick to suspects that were suspected at the time or are proven murderers that were around at the time and can be proven to be in London in 1888?

This is a sweeping generation, but I don't think an unfair one. It is more of an intellectual observation, than a moral one, and I offer it without any ill-will.

It's hard not to notice that those who champion suspects who were unsuspected by anyone at the time of the murders, 1888-1891, tend to be--for lack of better words--eccentrics, cranks, dreamers, and crackpots.

Those who champion suspects who were actually suspected at the time of the murders, 1888-1891, generally avoid that accusation, and tend to be more circumspect and disciplined in their thinking.

There are exceptions, of course, but it appears to be a general, if somewhat fuzzy, rule. Even though they've come up with different solutions and may violently disagree about the case, it's impossible to see Sugden, Begg, Fido, Evans, Beadle, Rumbelow, House, etc., as "crackpots."

The same can seldom be said of those who obsessively accuse those with no actual connection to the case or the case evidence.

Why is this? Well, the second group obviously thinks of themselves as mavericks. They tend to be more adamant and insistent about their claims because they are self-educated scholars, going it alone and in isolation, who believe they can see something that no one else sees. At a root level, it is necessary for them to believe they are more clever than the police who actually investigated the case, whereas Sugden, Begg, etc. obviously do not, since their own suspicions were shared by one or more contemporaries.

Of course, it is theoretically possible for an independent genius to actually discover the murderer's identity, and, since these theorists tend to see themselves as falling into that category, they have no difficulty in convincing themselves that they are on the right track.

Respectfully submitted.

R P

[JeffHamm]

Hi erobitha,

I wouldn't say laws are above morals, or vice versa, but rather that legality and morality are different independent dimensions by which one can address the issue. That quibble aside, I believe you are correct and that legally in countries that are based upon English law one cannot slander the dead. However, I don't know if that is the case in all countries, though, and so would suggest that even a legal approach has it's subjective side to it as one has to put it in the context of a particular legal system. That's similar to how moral arguments are based upon a particular framework of morality. In my view, slandering someone is amoral because it is destructive to the truth. And I believe that advancement, and improvements, in all things are more quickly and accurately found when one has at hand reality based information (meaning true information). Therefore, misrepresentation of reality results in unnecessary delays and worse decisions being made, both of which lead to more negative consequences that could have been avoided (which is what to me makes misrepresentation of reality immoral, it causes unnecessary and avoidable damage).

It's probably easier to consider the issue through the flip side. In many ways what we're talking about is similar to exposing the actual misdeeds of past historical figures that have been masked. It is considered important to rectify the historical record despite the fact they are long dead and so cannot be directly punished for their misdeeds. In this thread we're simply reversing that idea, imposing fictional misdeeds and covering up actual innocence rather than exposing factual misdeeds that were covered up by false innocence. Anyway, that's where I see the moral issue entering into it despite the lack of any legal transgression (under English law). But again, that all comes from a particular viewpoint that morality is evaluated based upon knowingly doing something that has the potential for inflicting unnecessary harm. (note, a past figure that did what they thought was best even though we may now know that their actions are not the best option cannot be said to have been acting in an immoral manner, but someone today could do the same action and be judged differently because we now know better options exist). Of course, it may be hard to know how misrepresenting the life of someone long dead could lead to poor decisions that end up unnecessarily damaging anything this many years later, but it really would not surprise me if examples could be found where that has happened, and that suggests to me it has a real potential for some unnecessary harm.

As for your own work, given you describe it as being fictional, then the intent is very different. You're not presenting it as a non-fictional account, even though you are researching for historical accuracy. That's just doing the hard yards necessary to create a good story, and should be applauded.

- Jeff