How to make Ripperology better?

[paul g]

A facts thread/page would be a great addition.
Not sure of what the requirements be for a 100% unequivocal fact but it would be a step in the right direction.

[Scott Nelson]

Tell us about her, Scott.

I did in Ripperana no. 86 (October 2013) and in Ripperolgist no. 130 (February 2013).

[Abby Normal]

I can't remember if Fleming had a history of violence against women, but he did go to an asylum where he remained until his death. His prior association with Mary Kelly makes him almost as good a candidate as Morgenstern for her killer.

hi scott
it was said tjat he used to ill use her. i agree. theres also an interesting theory that he was really hutch.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Maybe not what Ally originally had in mind although I think it would make Casebook better.
I give up reading a lot of threads because of it.

It's the way some regular posters here quote other posts. Mostly when it comes to multi-quoting, and that they don't seem to know how to do it correctly.

Instead of how you're supposed to do it, some of them grab the text they want to quote and put it in italics, others put it in bold, then there's others who don't change anything but just add some quotes ("text") or even some arrows (<text>) or the initials of the person they are quoting.

If it's somebody new, or maybe posts very rarely then that doesn't bother me much but I'm talking about members who have been posting for years and still do it.

Now I've been using computers since 1981 and have an interest in computers. I know that's not the case for most (the rest?) of you for which computers are just a means to an end.

But I can't imagine it taking more than an hour for anybody to get their head around how to do it. Or am I wrong there? Just keep experimenting using the preview function.

Weirdly, over the years, even though I've always thought the diary was a Barrett hoax, I find myself ending up in those threads often as I know that the members that post in those threads regularly all seem to know how to multi-quote so I know I won't have any problem reading the posts!

I doubt my post will change anything but ever since I started reading this forum, at least 20 years ago, it's bothered me. Now I've said it.

Would a 'A Guide to Quoting' document be a start?

[JeffHamm]

What would make it better depends upon what better means. Better is a subjective description, what is better for me might be worse for you. This is because better is in reference to some ideal goal, or ideal state, and anything that moves something closer to that ideal makes it better. The problem is that not everyone has the same idea of what that ideal is, and moving towards one state is moving away from others.

So for those who approach the topic as a historical topic, then moving towards the ideals of historical research and knowledge is better, but for those who approach it from the perspective of an unsolvable puzzle with creative arranging of the information to form different possibilities is the desired approach, then any such move makes it worse (and vice versa). There are those who thrive on fairly aggressive forms of cut and thrust debate, and those who prefer more detached discussions. Those who believe that one should only state what we know for sure (which is sadly precious little), while others want to push the boundaries of what could be (which is all but unbounded). There is no universal "better" because there is no universal ideal.

However, if the goal of Casebook is to be a depository for the thoughts, ideas, information, and so forth related to the case, then I think it's doing a pretty good job of it. It's a collection of all of the ideas, showcasing what each has to offer, allowing anyone who takes the time to read through some of the threads the opportunity to experience all of the approaches and find amongst the chaos that which appeals to them.

As such, I think it would be great if some sections, like the Inquest documents section, included as many different versions as possible, given the testimony is presented in the press with some different wordings and so forth. At the moment, I think only one version of each inquest is presented, and there have been times when these get referenced but posters are referring to different newspapers where some critical wording differences arise. I know we can often find them in the press reports pages, but I think it would be very helpful (though a lot of work I realise) if the relevant news reports from all the papers were listed under that section directly.

Also, as new information about suspects, or witnesses, or victims, becomes known and verified, it would be nice if that information could be incorporated into the corresponding pages on those individuals. A lot of information gets lost in the message boards, so new facts, when possible, would be nice to preserve in the site dedicated pages.

But as for Ripperology, it's a topic that people engage in for many different reasons. There is no one "better". Different doesn't have to mean worse or better, it's just different. If someone's approach clearly is working at odds to your own then don't take it personally. They're exploring things in a way different from you, and if they're saying things that don't work for you then by all means present your counter, but don't expect them to change their view. They are seeing things with a different purpose in mind, so expect your argument to be rejected. It's not about converting people so that we all think the same. How boring would that be?

- Jeff

[Iconoclast]

The Diary has been beaten, squeezed, thrashed, shreaded, diced, spliced & discredited so many times since Casebook opened it's really staggering that anyone should show legitimate interest in it anymore.

If you walked into a court of law with a lawyer and this argument, you'd be laughed out of the place or soon doing time for contempt. You don't just get to disparage what you've barely studied and what you definitely don't like. You can make these claims on these 'streets', but steer clear of the legal chambers, that's my advice.

The only debatable matter seems to be how it was done, not whether it is genuine - that ship has already sailed.

Again, I'd avoid selling the house to fund your court case. You wouldn't get beyond the steps and the metal-detectors. Again, you're out on the 'streets' shouting your mouth off. That's fine. Take it to the judge, however, and you'd quickly find yourself cattle-trucked.

I dare you, though: I dare you here, safe on the 'streets', to give us all your lawyer's opening argument in prosecuting the Maybrick scrapbook and Maybrick watch as hoaxes. I'd love to see what depths of analysis you can actually reach before you start dipping into the cliches and the lies.

"It's all been proven to be a hoax, Your Honour! Proven!"
"Proven? What is your definition of 'proven' here, counsellor?"
"Well, the one we all use, Your Honour - it means that's your opinion about something"
"Can you give me an example of a 'proven' argument against the scrapbook and watch?"
"Easily, Your Honour. I got loads of them off 'Casebook: Jack the Ripper' - it's a website full of people carefully reviewing all of the evidence and prudently pronouncing judgements on candidates for the Whitechapel murderer based upon data consensus. Here's a good example for you: 'The Diary has been beaten, squeezed, thrashed, shreaded, diced, spliced & discredited so many times since Casebook opened it's really staggering that anyone should show legitimate interest in it anymore.'"
"Sigh"
"Oh, and while I'm at it, here's another piece of extraordinary insight: 'The only debatable matter seems to be how it was done, not whether it is genuine - that ship has already sailed.'. So there you have it, Judge"
"And has that ship already sailed, counsellor? Does the data incontrovertibly, unequivocally, undeniably show that these artefacts were hoaxes?"
"Erm, well no, Your Honour. That's not what 'proven' means, though, is it?"
"Next case!"

Might be worth making an argument not simply posting unsubstantiated opinions, counsellor.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Might be worth making an argument not simply posting unsubstantiated opinions, counsellor.

Hi Ike.

In his roughly 8 years of marriage, how many times did Maybrick assault his wife?

We've been told that her assaulted her on "numerous occasions."

Is this true?

Cheers, RP

numerous

"consisting of great numbers of units or individuals."

[FISHY1118]

If you walked into a court of law with a lawyer and this argument, you'd be laughed out of the place or soon doing time for contempt. You don't just get to disparage what you've barely studied and what you definitely don't like. You can make these claims on these 'streets', but steer clear of the legal chambers, that's my advice.



Again, I'd avoid selling the house to fund your court case. You wouldn't get beyond the steps and the metal-detectors. Again, you're out on the 'streets' shouting your mouth off. That's fine. Take it to the judge, however, and you'd quickly find yourself cattle-trucked.

I dare you, though: I dare you here, safe on the 'streets', to give us all your lawyer's opening argument in prosecuting the Maybrick scrapbook and Maybrick watch as hoaxes. I'd love to see what depths of analysis you can actually reach before you start dipping into the cliches and the lies.

"It's all been proven to be a hoax, Your Honour! Proven!"
"Proven? What is your definition of 'proven' here, counsellor?"
"Well, the one we all use, Your Honour - it means that's your opinion about something"
"Can you give me an example of a 'proven' argument against the scrapbook and watch?"
"Easily, Your Honour. I got loads of them off 'Casebook: Jack the Ripper' - it's a website full of people carefully reviewing all of the evidence and prudently pronouncing judgements on candidates for the Whitechapel murderer based upon data consensus. Here's a good example for you: 'The Diary has been beaten, squeezed, thrashed, shreaded, diced, spliced & discredited so many times since Casebook opened it's really staggering that anyone should show legitimate interest in it anymore.'"
"Sigh"
"Oh, and while I'm at it, here's another piece of extraordinary insight: 'The only debatable matter seems to be how it was done, not whether it is genuine - that ship has already sailed.'. So there you have it, Judge"
"And has that ship already sailed, counsellor? Does the data incontrovertibly, unequivocally, undeniably show that these artefacts were hoaxes?"
"Erm, well no, Your Honour. That's not what 'proven' means, though, is it?"
"Next case!"

Might be worth making an argument not simply posting unsubstantiated opinions, counsellor.

Ike

I cant wait for Wickermans reply

[Iconoclast]

I cant wait for Wickermans reply

Yes, I'm rather looking forward to it also.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Ike.

In his roughly 8 years of marriage, how many times did Maybrick assault his wife?

We've been told that her assaulted her on "numerous occasions."

Is this true?

Cheers, RP

numerous

"consisting of great numbers of units or individuals."

Hi RJ,

How strange to converse in an 'other' place.

As I recall, your question is in response to ero b's recent posts?

I can't say that I know with any certainty how many times Maybrick was actually known to have abused Florie. There are at least two claims in the scrapbook itself though clearly that's not what you mean. On the occasion of the Grand National in 1889, he certainly took his fists to her (as testified to by - was it Mary Cadwallader? - at Florie's trial). The scrapbook refers to a similar attack on Florie at the end of 1888 when he tore up his Will, etc., and tore into his wife, but I don't recall that there is any external evidence to prove this.

The fact is, I don't know the answer to your question, RJ, but I would be willing to put money on Maybrick's actions after the Grand National not being the first time he had attempted to control his wife with his fists.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

thats not even debateable. the only real question is why people continue to defend it as if there is still any mystery at all too it.
but i think I know the reason for that too.

the best thing for ripperology would be to denounce it, and those that still defend it (or even still bring it up), forget about it and move on.

Missed this mince.

Go on then, Abby, give us all your lawyer's gambit to the court to demonstrate everything you know which proves conclusively that the only candidate in the history of Ripperology who ever had any actual evidence to evaluate should 'forget about it and move on'.

As long as he's not simply spouting the endless mendacious platitudes we get so frequently with Maybrick then - I'm an honest guy - if your lawyer can construct such a compelling case, I'll definitely forget about it and move on. Until then, I'll just keep working on the 2025 version of my brilliant Society's Pillar; probably the best book on the Ripper ever written. And that's proven!

Ike

[FISHY1118]

Im curious Ike, how was Maybrick, a cotton farmer no less, was able to remove Eddowes kidney ? One of the most difficult organs to locate let alone remove in less than 7 mins in the darkest corner of Mitre Square . ?


Theres only one way to solve that puzzle .... with experiment .

Fine a cotton farmer say about Maybricks age ,whos has no or little medical experience ,get him to meet you at Mitre Square on a wet Sept evening /morning at 1.30am. Have a pig [dead of course] ready in the corner [ive been told the organs of pigs are very close to humans not only what type of organ but where they are situated in the abdomial cavity ] . Give him a sharp knife and tell him his got 7 mins to remove the kidney , you hold the stop watch .
In fact, that test should be undertaken full stop , just to prove yes /no that the organs could indeed be taken from the murder scene . Otherwise Trevor Marriot could be on to something [dare i say it ]

Now as macabre and gross as that sounds








Better than all those silly test on the ink of a diary or electroplate testing on a phony pocket watch dont you think? Where has that gotton us ?

[GBinOz]

If you walked into a court of law with a lawyer and this argument, you'd be laughed out of the place or soon doing time for contempt. You don't just get to disparage what you've barely studied and what you definitely don't like. You can make these claims on these 'streets', but steer clear of the legal chambers, that's my advice.



Again, I'd avoid selling the house to fund your court case. You wouldn't get beyond the steps and the metal-detectors. Again, you're out on the 'streets' shouting your mouth off. That's fine. Take it to the judge, however, and you'd quickly find yourself cattle-trucked.

I dare you, though: I dare you here, safe on the 'streets', to give us all your lawyer's opening argument in prosecuting the Maybrick scrapbook and Maybrick watch as hoaxes. I'd love to see what depths of analysis you can actually reach before you start dipping into the cliches and the lies.

"It's all been proven to be a hoax, Your Honour! Proven!"
"Proven? What is your definition of 'proven' here, counsellor?"
"Well, the one we all use, Your Honour - it means that's your opinion about something"
"Can you give me an example of a 'proven' argument against the scrapbook and watch?"
"Easily, Your Honour. I got loads of them off 'Casebook: Jack the Ripper' - it's a website full of people carefully reviewing all of the evidence and prudently pronouncing judgements on candidates for the Whitechapel murderer based upon data consensus. Here's a good example for you: 'The Diary has been beaten, squeezed, thrashed, shreaded, diced, spliced & discredited so many times since Casebook opened it's really staggering that anyone should show legitimate interest in it anymore.'"
"Sigh"
"Oh, and while I'm at it, here's another piece of extraordinary insight: 'The only debatable matter seems to be how it was done, not whether it is genuine - that ship has already sailed.'. So there you have it, Judge"
"And has that ship already sailed, counsellor? Does the data incontrovertibly, unequivocally, undeniably show that these artefacts were hoaxes?"
"Erm, well no, Your Honour. That's not what 'proven' means, though, is it?"
"Next case!"

Might be worth making an argument not simply posting unsubstantiated opinions, counsellor.

Ike

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. - Carl Sagan

Should it not be the obligation of the lawyer presenting the Maybrick scrapbook as genuine to prove his case?

"It's all been proven to be a genuine, Your Honour! Proven!"
"Proven? What is your definition of 'proven' here, counsellor?"
"Well, the one we all use, Your Honour - it means that's your opinion about something"
"Can you give me an example of a 'proven' argument in favour of the scrapbook being genuine?"
"Easily, Your Honour. The presenter of the scrapbook said he got it from this guy in a pub. While it's true that he later confessed to forging it, the only debatable matter seems to be why he said that, not whether the scrapbook is genuine - that ship has already sailed.'. So there you have it, Judge"
"And has that ship already sailed, counsellor? Does the data incontrovertibly, unequivocally, undeniably show that the scrapbook was genuine?"
"Erm, well no, Your Honour. That's not what 'proven' means, though, is it?"
"Next case!"

[rjpalmer]

Hello again, Ike.

Thanks for acknowledging that you don't know.

I can't say that I know with any certainty how many times Maybrick was actually known to have abused Florie.

And..

The fact is, I don't know the answer to your question, RJ

Very gentlemanly of you Ike. It certainly looks like we are members of the same club, because I don't know either.

Alas, I suppose this means that Ero will remain 'astounded' by our mutual 'lack of knowledge' because evidently it is a well-known and well-documented fact that Maybrick frequently beat his wife.

People’s lack of knowledge of Maybrick is quite astounding.

Maybrick attacked his wife on numerous occasions. Not once, numerous.

It looks like we have some reading to do, Ike, to get up to speed!

Unless, of course, Mr. H was merely 'gilding the lily.'

RP

[erobitha]

I have to find where I found that source with regards to the second event and come back.

In the meantime we could consider him threatening Nurse Yapp with violence as multiple women? Or is that not satisfactory?