Is it right?

[Ms Diddles]

So, don't forget the laptop so this meeting can be Skyped for Casebook members around the world.....

Oh Gosh!

I'd probably have one too many and forget my laptop in the Ten Bells!!!

Will post pics though!

[Wickerman]

So, don't forget the laptop so this meeting can be Skyped for Casebook members around the world.....

[Ms Diddles]

Your welcome.

Your trip sounds like a lot of fun. Hopefully it'll be sooner rather than later.

Please do let me know ahead of time about your "Ripper Day" and I'll do my best to be there along with those pics.

And thanks for the invite!

Martyn

Of course!

I'll drop you a PM when we have a definite plan.

We're hanging fire on booking anything right now until we see how things play out Covid-wise.

I quite like the idea of an autumn / winter trip.

Whitechapel would be a bit darker and more atmospheric, and I could do some Christmas shopping while I'm there!

[mpriestnall]

Thanks Martyn!

That's really kind of you and very intriguing!!

I'm up in rainy Scotland, but am planning a trip to Whitechapel with a friend later this year (or indeed early next year, depending on this plague!).

We're planning on spending three days in London.

It's a packed itinerary!

My friend is "curating" a Franklin day (Greenwich Maritime Museum etc).

I'm in charge of the Ripper day (any feasible murder sites, Brick Lane, many pubs and a curry in the old Frying Pan)!

The third day will involve posh shops, afternoon tea and cocktails!

I will let you know when the "Ripper Day" is, and if you happen to be free and fancy a pint, we'd love to see your pics.

They sound very interesting.

Good luck with the writing in the meantime!

Your welcome.

Your trip sounds like a lot of fun. Hopefully it'll be sooner rather than later.

Please do let me know ahead of time about your "Ripper Day" and I'll do my best to be there along with those pics.

And thanks for the invite!

Martyn

[Ms Diddles]

Thanks Ms Diddles. I appreciate it.

The offer I made to Mr Barnett is open to you, but I don't think you're London based and may not be too convenient etc!

If Gary decides to take up the offer, perhaps he could let you know afterwards his thoughts on the pictures of Jack/Astrakhan, and Kelly siblings etc?

regards,

Martyn

Thanks Martyn!

That's really kind of you and very intriguing!!

I'm up in rainy Scotland, but am planning a trip to Whitechapel with a friend later this year (or indeed early next year, depending on this plague!).

We're planning on spending three days in London.

It's a packed itinerary!

My friend is "curating" a Franklin day (Greenwich Maritime Museum etc).

I'm in charge of the Ripper day (any feasible murder sites, Brick Lane, many pubs and a curry in the old Frying Pan)!

The third day will involve posh shops, afternoon tea and cocktails!

I will let you know when the "Ripper Day" is, and if you happen to be free and fancy a pint, we'd love to see your pics.

They sound very interesting.

Good luck with the writing in the meantime!

[mpriestnall]

That sounds like an offer I can’t refuse.

I have my own ideas about MJK and who might have been involved in her death. Not a full-blown theory and no real evidence, just a hunch that certain people I’ve come across may have been involved in some way.

I am a member of the WS, so a meet up there sounds good. I also drink beer, so a meet in a pub sounds even better.

Option 2 it is then!

I thought you were a WS member as I saw your name quoted in the last or recent edition of the Journal in relation to an article I think! I'm in the Goodmans at the moment and I'm working from memory.

The pictures of Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly all have interesting contexts because I have copy and pasted them (nothing Photoshopped!) adjacent to other pictures, namely:

- Jack along side the face carved on Abbeline's walking stick.
- Astrakhan against Randolph Churchill's face.
- Kelly's press picture against 2 of "my" Kelly's sisters, bumpy-clefted chins and all.

I have a "smoking-gun" level document in my possession, which I'm sure will be of interest to you as well.

I tried to show Bill and Mark et al this at the very last face-to-face interim meeting just before the Great Plague started, but they understandably struggled to read it due to the handwriting and the poor light in the Crutched Friars and it was at the very end of the session anyway. I'll bring along to the next interim and give it another go.

I'll bring it to the pub to show you as well, along with a transcription though you can see the original too.

I'm looking to meeting you and hearing your take on Kelly and co.

I'll PM you so we can agree the date and pub!

Martyn

[MrBarnett]

I would like to but I think it's best I don't say anything more.

I regret posting my prediction now, not that I don't know the identity of Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly but because I'm sure I do.

If you ever fancy going to a full or interim meeting of the Whitechapel Society, when they revert back to face to face meetings, let me know and I'll make sure I attend too.

Or maybe a meet up in a pub here in London before then?

I'll be happy then to tell you more and I can show you a picture of Jack, Astrakhan, and a picture of Kelly's of siblings. Her siblings look similar to the press picture of Kelly (the dark haired, dumpy looking one, not the blonde bombshell one). Kelly's press picture has the same type of chin i.e. a bump with a cleft. A combination which I think is fairly unusual.

I'll be interested in what you think of them.

regards,

Martyn

That sounds like an offer I can’t refuse.

I have my own ideas about MJK and who might have been involved in her death. Not a full-blown theory and no real evidence, just a hunch that certain people I’ve come across may have been involved in some way.

I am a member of the WS, so a meet up there sounds good. I also drink beer, so a meet in a pub sounds even better.

[mpriestnall]

Best of luck with the book!

I will look forward to reading it once published!

Thanks Ms Diddles. I appreciate it.

The offer I made to Mr Barnett is open to you, but I don't think you're London based and may not be too convenient etc!

If Gary decides to take up the offer, perhaps he could let you know afterwards his thoughts on the pictures of Jack/Astrakhan, and Kelly siblings etc?

regards,

Martyn

[mpriestnall]

Can you give us a teeny tiny clue?

I would like to but I think it's best I don't say anything more.

I regret posting my prediction now, not that I don't know the identity of Jack, Astrakhan and Kelly but because I'm sure I do.

If you ever fancy going to a full or interim meeting of the Whitechapel Society, when they revert back to face to face meetings, let me know and I'll make sure I attend too.

Or maybe a meet up in a pub here in London before then?

I'll be happy then to tell you more and I can show you a picture of Jack, Astrakhan, and a picture of Kelly's of siblings. Her siblings look similar to the press picture of Kelly (the dark haired, dumpy looking one, not the blonde bombshell one). Kelly's press picture has the same type of chin i.e. a bump with a cleft. A combination which I think is fairly unusual.

I'll be interested in what you think of them.

regards,

Martyn

[JeffHamm]

Absolutely, Jeff.

And I agree with the rest of your post too.

I don't see much difference between concluding that, for argument's sake, George Chapman or Monty Druitt was the ripper - both suspected by others in the past - and concluding it was someone never previously mentioned or suspected. A conclusion of any sort would need far stronger evidence than has so far been presented by anyone. The various 'case closed' books don't thrill me, regardless of whether it was Francis Tumblety being fingered, or Lewis Carroll. Every man Jack of them was overwhelmingly likely to be innocent of those murders.

However, in the case of presenting Mr X or Mr Y as a hypothesis, it's less black and white for me, and the justification for it depends largely on the quality of the research and the reasoning involved in making a case against the individual concerned. Speculation is inevitable to fill in the gaps, but will rightly be frowned upon whenever it takes liberties with the evidence. This happens a lot, yet I am still surprised by how much more offence is taken by those who are taking the most liberties.

A strong case should be able to do its own leg work, taking people with it rather than leaving everyone sceptical. That's why I'd like to think that we'd know it if the ripper had already been in our sights, because everything learned about him should have led naturally to that conclusion, and nothing should have needed altering to fit.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, and nicely put.

- Jeff

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I see your point. I think, however, there is a difference between presenting "Mr. X." as a hypothesis that is based upon some initial evidence that leads one to it and presenting "Mr. X. was JtR" as a conclusion...

Absolutely, Jeff.

And I agree with the rest of your post too.

I don't see much difference between concluding that, for argument's sake, George Chapman or Monty Druitt was the ripper - both suspected by others in the past - and concluding it was someone never previously mentioned or suspected. A conclusion of any sort would need far stronger evidence than has so far been presented by anyone. The various 'case closed' books don't thrill me, regardless of whether it was Francis Tumblety being fingered, or Lewis Carroll. Every man Jack of them was overwhelmingly likely to be innocent of those murders.

However, in the case of presenting Mr X or Mr Y as a hypothesis, it's less black and white for me, and the justification for it depends largely on the quality of the research and the reasoning involved in making a case against the individual concerned. Speculation is inevitable to fill in the gaps, but will rightly be frowned upon whenever it takes liberties with the evidence. This happens a lot, yet I am still surprised by how much more offence is taken by those who are taking the most liberties.

A strong case should be able to do its own leg work, taking people with it rather than leaving everyone sceptical. That's why I'd like to think that we'd know it if the ripper had already been in our sights, because everything learned about him should have led naturally to that conclusion, and nothing should have needed altering to fit.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Can you give us a teeny tiny clue?

Well Astrakhan doesn't appear poor, and determining Kelly's identity might mean finding her name on some sort of non-census related list.
So I'll take a wild guess that Jack is going to be identified as a certain doctor.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi Caz,

I see your point. I think, however, there is a difference between presenting "Mr. X." as a hypothesis that is based upon some initial evidence that leads one to it and presenting "Mr. X. was JtR" as a conclusion. That initial evidence for a hypothesis might, for example, be nothing more than the fact that "in the vast majority of murder cases there is a personal link between the victim and the murderer, with partners being the most common." That allows for a reasonable hypothesis to be derived "H: JtR was a partner of one of the victims", bringing in people like Barnett and Kidney as worthy research targets. Then, research begins with that hypothesis in mind. If it is correct, then one would expect to find more and more corroborating evidence, rather than requiring an increasing number of hypotheses required to fill in the missing evidence that is not forthcoming or to discard the disconfirming evidence that does arise. Presenting an idea as a hypothesis is not an accusation, and that's where I think the difference is (provided it is made clear it is presented as a question in the first place). The conclusion of the research should then be presented as either confirming, supporting/consistent with, or disconfirming of the hypothesis. Confirming would require extremely convincing objective evidence of some sort. Supporting/consistent with type of conclusions would be objective evidence was found that allows for the person to remain of interest, but there are explanations also available that lead to innocence. Disconfirming evidence would be of the sort that demonstrates the person could not have been JtR. Because there are far more people who are not JtR than who were, only confirming evidence should be used to claim Mr. X. was JtR, as it is far more likely that the supporting/consistent with type of evidence reflects one of the innocent (there are just so many more of them).

What does not count as evidence is a web of hypotheses masking as evidence. The fact that most murders do have that personal relationship is not evidence that Barnett and/or Kidney were JtR, it's a probabilistic bit of information that just indicates they happen to be members of the group in which most murderers are found - but being in that group doesn't mean you are the murderer. And, one would want to look at the strength of that relationship when it comes to serial murderers, like JtR. It may very well be that it is much less common for there to be that close relationship, although there may still be some association it may not be one of the close circle of friends and relations (i.e. JtR may have engaged the services of prostitutes, something I think is highly likely).

Picking a name out of a hat filled with residence of London, is also not a good starting point. However, if one decides that JtR had medical training (based upon some of the contemporary claims), then sure, examine all the doctors and see who you can rule out. But simply picking one of them at random is poor form even if there was something that makes one think "hmmm, maybe Dr. = JtR because they worked at the London Hospital" because there would be lots of other doctors who also worked at the London Hospital, so they all need to be looked at. If you don't, how can you know if the evidence one finds is, in fact, uncommon? For example, let's say one finds that Dr. X had made some comments about prostitutes spreading diseases, or some such thing, and puts that forth as evidence that Dr. X. had negative views towards prostitution. But it could very well be that many of the other London Hospital Doctors held the same views, and wrote similar comments. If they were all doing it, then that "evidence" is not very powerful because one could have picked any of the other doctors and found the same thing - and all of them can't be JtR. Too often we seen something presented about Mr. X. that is described as sinister, but what's missing is any evidence that activity was, in fact, uncommon. I'm sure JtR went to the pubs in the area, for example, but that was hardly uncommon activity for anybody in the area. Showing that Mr. X. went to the pub might be consistent with my thoughts that JtR frequented them, but it is also consistent with Mr. X. not being JtR as well - and it is such a common activity that it really would bear no weight.

Anyway, I do believe there is a difference between researching a question, which is not an immoral thing to do, and making an accusation (the conclusion) that is simply unfounded. I suppose, though, if the initial question is also based upon irrational notions (Alice in Wonderland is a weird story + JtR committed weird crimes -> Maybe Lewis Carrol was JtR as both did weird things), then it could get to the point where to propose the hypothesis as if it is a valid question becomes immoral. It certainly would be poor research skills (hypothesis forming is part of research after all).

- Jeff

[Ms Diddles]

I was really talking about my proposed book. I have only just started my first draft of the MS.

With most of my research done (which is been going on and off since 2016), I now have a pretty good
idea of what I want to put in it. I want to go the traditional route of finding an agent and then a publisher. IOW timescales are very much up in the air. My best guess (based on no experience of publishing a book) is bugger if I know! 2-4 years? Who knows? One thing I do know is that I'm 100% determined to get my solution to the case out there one day. No matter how long it takes, I'm confident it will be worth the wait, honest!

Martyn

Best of luck with the book!

I will look forward to reading it once published!

[mpriestnall]

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

I was really talking about my proposed book. I have only just started my first draft of the MS.

With most of my research done (which is been going on and off since 2016), I now have a pretty good
idea of what I want to put in it. I want to go the traditional route of finding an agent and then a publisher. IOW timescales are very much up in the air. My best guess (based on no experience of publishing a book) is bugger if I know! 2-4 years? Who knows? One thing I do know is that I'm 100% determined to get my solution to the case out there one day. No matter how long it takes, I'm confident it will be worth the wait, honest!

Martyn