How to make Ripperology better?

[rjpalmer]

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

One would think so, but this is not an established rule when dealing with the Diary friendly.

Theirs is a faith-based belief, utterly removed from any need for evidence or proof, and, as they see it, it is the task of the critics to shake their faith.

Although Ike denies it, this is the entire schtick of the 'Incontrovertible' thread.

'Iconoclast' (the use of this name is quite telling) is akin to the lay preacher standing on his soap-box in Hyde Park Corner, mocking the crowd and challenging all-comers to divest him of his faith.

He knows in advance that they will fail to do it.

The crowd faces an impossible task...and he knows it...because his scope for belief in the face of evidence or reason or argument or logic or mere commonsense is infinite.

The fortress of his belief is utterly unassailable.

At this remove, even CCTV footage of the Barretts creating the diary in their Goldie Street home could not shake the faith of the believer.

It would simply be argued that there were two guard books and the CCTV footage merely shows the Barretts trying to 'ascertain how a hoaxer might have done it.'

This will be denied, of course, because part of the schtick is to constantly assure everyone that 'we believers' are entirely amendable to logic and proof, etc. etc.--you critics are just failing to convince us and your arguments are faulty and dishonest.

In short, Carl Sagan was unduly optimistic. Reason is a very weak force compared to blind faith.

The solid rock of Diary belief cannot and will not be shaken. Not ever.

The Sunday Times couldn't do it. Kenneth Rendell's team couldn't do it. Harris couldn't do it. Nor Evans nor Sugden nor Omlor nor Phillips nor Hacker nor anyone else. Lord Orsam, too, has failed.

As long as there is a will to believe, Ike will remain untouched and unconcerned and unafraid, laughing at the futility of his critics.

Really, the only suitable reaction to such savants is to roll down the window shade when you see them coming up the walk.

Unfortunately, it took me many years to realize this.

[Iconoclast]

One would think so, but this is not an established rule when dealing with the Diary friendly.

Theirs is a faith-based belief, utterly removed from any need for evidence or proof, and, as they see it, it is the task of the critics to shake their faith.

Although Ike denies it, this is the entire schtick of the 'Incontrovertible' thread.

'Iconoclast' (the use of this name is quite telling) is akin to the lay preacher standing on his soap-box in Hyde Park Corner, mocking the crowd and challenging all-comers to divest him of his faith.

He knows in advance that they will fail to do it.

The crowd faces an impossible task...and he knows it...because his scope for belief in the face of evidence or reason or argument or logic or mere commonsense is infinite.

The fortress of his belief is utterly unassailable.

At this remove, even CCTV footage of the Barrett's creating the diary in their Goldie Street home could not shake the faith of the believer.

It would simply be argued that there were two guard books and the CCTV footage merely shows the Barretts trying to 'ascertain how a hoaxer might have done it.'

This will be denied, of course, because part of the schtick is to constantly assure everyone that 'we believers' are entirely amendable to logic and proof, etc. etc.--you critics are just failing to convince us and your arguments are faulty and dishonest.

In short, Carl Sagan was unduly optimistic. Reason is a very weak force compared to blind faith.

The solid rock of Diary belief cannot and will not be shaken. Not ever.

The Sunday Times couldn't do it. Kenneth Rendell's team couldn't do it. Harris couldn't do it. Nor Evans nor Sugden nor Omlor nor Phillips nor Hacker nor anyone else. Lord Orsam, too, has failed.

As long as there is a will to believe, Ike will remain untouched and unconcerned and unafraid, laughing at the futility of his critics.

Really, the only suitable reaction to such savants is to roll down the window shade when you see them coming up the walk.

Unfortunately, it took me many years to realize this.

Actually, just some incontrovertible evidence would do it, RJ, but - as well you know - you and your ilk have failed precisely for the lack of any (other than that which once undressed is no more than opinion).

PS I did enjoy your post, however - very poetic ...

Ike
Breaker of Craven Images and Baseless Opinions

[rjpalmer]

Recently spotted in an undisclosed location in Scotland

[Iconoclast]

Recently spotted in an undisclosed location in Scotland

[rjpalmer]

Ike - I hear there is a rival table somewhere in the Pacific Rim, but I can't verify it.

[John Wheat]

Ridiculous

[John Wheat]

Ike - I hear there is a rival table somewhere in the Pacific Rim, but I can't verify it.

Ridiculous

[Iconoclast]

Ridiculous

If it is 'ridiculous' that I live in England rather than Scotland (when I do in fact live in England), could you clarify why it would be 'ridiculous' for me to claim it is so?

I'm teasing you here: your literally monosyllabic post simply shows us all the value we should place on your attempts at commentary which are consistently ill-structured, illogical, and thoroughly self-serving. This is a good example - literally a post explaining that I live somewhere other than where someone claims I live and you're sitting there tutting in your rocking chair, muttering "ridiculous" to the wind. You probably didn't even read the post I was posting in reference to. Par for the course with your typical posts, I'd say.

[rjpalmer]

If it is 'ridiculous' that I live in England rather than Scotland (when I do in fact live in England), could you clarify why it would be 'ridiculous' for me to claim it is so?

Ike - No offense intended, Old Boy--you could be a 6' tall woman living in a nursing home in Montgomery, Alabama, for all I know, but your not infrequent references to haggis, Sir Walter Scott, golf, and freezing your backside off have caused me to forever associate you with Scotland. I doubt this impression is going to go away anytime soon. Anyway, some of my favorite bands are out of Glasgow, so I feel a kinship with that city. It's not an insult.

[rjpalmer]

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

Here's a philosophical --or psychological-- point to ponder, Ike. Ripperologists are suddenly keen on looking for wife beaters.

But is 'wife beating' a reliable sign that someone might be a secret multicide?

Does our boy Jack go out and treat other women in the street the same way he treats his own wife?

Is it that simplistic?

I think not.

Some will dismiss the following as a psychological cliché, but I think there is something to be said for the ol' 'Whore/Madonna Syndrome.'

Peter Kurten--whose crimes resembled the Ripper's very closely-- worshiped his own wife. He placed her on a pedestal that dripped with sentimentality. Yet this adoration didn't prevent him from going out and cutting other women to pieces.

Andrei Chikatilo, the so-called 'Russian Ripper' was another such case. He spoke of his wife as a living saint.

Wasn't Sutcliffe another example? If I recall correctly, Sonya, or whatever her name is, wore the britches, and Sutcliffe almost cowered before her.

In this regard, your diarist seems to have convinced Dr. Canter, but I'm afraid that he hasn't convinced me all that much. To my mind, the diarist's constant references to his own wife as 'the whore' strike something of a false note. The whole scenario and motivations for his crimes come across as cartoonish, and, with apologies to Dr. Canter, I'm far from convinced that the psychology is as convincing as he claims it is.

In brief, there is an enormous gulf between a run-of-the-mill wife beater and 'Jack the Ripper,' otherwise the UK would have been full of 'Jack the Rippers' because wife beaters were two-a-penny in the Victorian era.

Or, as we say on the Pacific Rim, a 'dime a dozen.'

[MrBarnett]

Here's a philosophical --or psychological-- point to ponder, Ike. Ripperologists are suddenly keen on looking for wife beaters.

But is 'wife beating' a reliable sign that someone might be a secret multicide?

Does our boy Jack go out and treat other women in the street the same way he treats his own wife?

Is it that simplistic?

I think not.

Some will dismiss the following as a psychological cliché, but I think there is something to be said for the ol' 'Whore/Madonna Syndrome.'

Peter Kurten--whose crimes resembled the Ripper's very closely-- worshiped his own wife. He placed her on a pedestal that dripped with sentimentality. Yet this adoration didn't prevent him from going out and cutting other women to pieces.

Andrei Chikatilo, the so-called 'Russian Ripper' was another such case. He spoke of his wife as a living saint.

Wasn't Sutcliffe another example? If I recall correctly, Sonya, or whatever her name is, wore the britches, and Sutcliffe almost cowered before her.

In this regard, your diarist seems to have convinced Dr. Canter, but I'm afraid that he hasn't convinced me all that much. To my mind, the diarist's constant references to his own wife as 'the whore' strike something of a false note. The whole scenario and motivations for his crimes come across as cartoonish, and, with apologies to Dr. Canter, I'm far from convinced that the psychology is as convincing as he claims it is.

In brief, there is an enormous gulf between a run-of-the-mill wife beater and 'Jack the Ripper,' otherwise the UK would have been full of 'Jack the Rippers' because wife beaters were two-a-penny in the Victorian era.

Or, as we say on the Pacific Rim, a 'dime a dozen.'

RJ, Who are these Ripperologists (plural) who are ‘suddenly’ keen on finding wife beaters?

[rjpalmer]

RJ, Who are these Ripperologists (plural) who are ‘suddenly’ keen on finding wife beaters?

Don't take it personally, Gary. I'm not really interested in an argument. To each his own. You mentioned Maywood, and then Erobitha tried to up-the-ante by bringing up Maybrick's alleged 'numerous' instances of domestic abuse. The Bury advocates then made their presence known, pointing to Bury as a wife beater.

I think the general impression was that 'Ripperology' would be 'better off' (which is the subject of this thread) if people were looking for someone with a history of spousal or domestic abuse.

A.P. Wolf did quite a lot of work years ago, chronicling the exploits of various bullies and/or domestic tyrants in the East End, not infrequently announcing that they were far better suspects than those named by the police. Some of these reprobates were quite interesting from a socio-economic point of view.

I'm just not convinced that the psychology is necessarily correct, but that's all I'm saying. If you disagree, then by all means reject my psychological observations.

One thing I would say though, is that if Mary Kelly was a 'one-off' victim of an acquaintance, I might be tempted to look a little closer to home. Barnett has his accusers, as does Michael Kidney.

But that's really an entirely different question. Attributing one or more of the victims to a spurned lover, in itself, wouldn't explain why we appear to be looking at a series.

The Barnett accusers attempted to solve this apparent weakness in their theory by coming up with a suggestion that wasn't too far removed from the Royal Conspiracy.

[Iconoclast]

Ike - No offense intended, Old Boy--you could be a 6' tall woman living in a nursing home in Montgomery, Alabama, for all I know, but your not infrequent references to haggis, Sir Walter Scott, golf, and freezing your backside off have caused me to forever associate you with Scotland. I doubt this impression is going to go away anytime soon. Anyway, some of my favorite bands are out of Glasgow, so I feel a kinship with that city. It's not an insult.

No, indeed, RJ, it is not an insult. For clarity, I am English, married to a Scot. I had spent twenty-three years in Scotland prior to us moving to the English Midlands where we have been these past twelve years. That makes me part-celt, I reckon. As the baby polar bear said to its mum, "Am I really a polar bear?", "Yes, dear, you are", "No, I mean really a polar bear?", "Yes dear, you are really a polar bear", "Like, a proper, real polar bear?", "Yes, dear, you are a proper, real polar bear. Why do you ask?", "'cos I'm ******* freezing".

Like that baby polar bear, we have rather acclimatised ('acclimated' to you, RJ) to the kinder southern weather so I doubt we'll be back up north except for jolly holidays.

Ike

[Iconoclast]

Here's a philosophical --or psychological-- point to ponder, Ike. Ripperologists are suddenly keen on looking for wife beaters.
But is 'wife beating' a reliable sign that someone might be a secret multicide?

I have no doubt in my mind that wife-beating is on a spectrum which ends with multicide (a term I've never heard of, by the way). If you're referring to ero b's comments recently, I think he was making the point that Maybrick was no saint where it came to treating Florie consistently well in response to someone who had suggested that he had no track record of violence towards women (James Maybrick, obviously, not ero b).

Does our boy Jack go out and treat other women in the street the same way he treats his own wife?
Is it that simplistic?
I think not.

You've answered your own question. Jacky inter alia do to others what they would generally never do to their wives. They have personal lives too and - generally speaking - they wish to protect those as much as you and I do.

Peter Kurten--whose crimes resembled the Ripper's very closely-- worshiped his own wife. He placed her on a pedestal that dripped with sentimentality. Yet this adoration didn't prevent him from going out and cutting other women to pieces.

I don't think it there is a strict psychological rule we can look up to check how a serial killer will behave. What links them is what they do not why they do it.

Andrei Chikatilo, the so-called 'Russian Ripper' was another such case. He spoke of his wife as a living saint.

Chikatilo killed because that was the only way he could maintain an erection and climax. This psychosis was entirely the product of a terrible upbringing (though few people with similar terrible upbringings will fail to control their urges in the way he failed to). With his wife, they were able to conceive 'manually' so he could be a father and therefore he could have a personal life to come home to and cherish. There were far too many more vulnerable people and children he could attack to get his kicks (if there weren't, maybe Mrs C would indeed have been in danger one day).

Wasn't Sutcliffe another example? If I recall correctly, Sonya, or whatever her name is, wore the britches, and Sutcliffe almost cowered before her.

Sutcliffe followed the Chikatilo mould in that he enjoyed a personal life but satisfied his psychoses via harming others. Indeed, he famously claimed to have attacked one victim as a result of his jealousy over Sonia pretty much as Maybrick essentially claimed to have done.

In this regard, your diarist seems to have convinced Dr. Canter, but I'm afraid that he hasn't convinced me all that much. To my mind, the diarist's constant references to his own wife as 'the whore' strike something of a false note. The whole scenario and motivations for his crimes come across as cartoonish, and, with apologies to Dr. Canter, I'm far from convinced that the psychology is as convincing as he claims it is.

Which brings us to James Maybrick, rather nicely. He loved Florie and his kids and his nice house and his nice business - oh, and his mistress and her kids (possibly, possibly not) but he needed to satisfy his 'psychosis' and - as he had decided in the terrible mores of the day that his wife's infidelities (real or perceived) made her a woman without virtue - he decided to avenge himself on sex workers instead of on his wife and her supposed lovers. Serial killers are generally pretty spineless bastards as a rule and James Maybrick was definitely no exception. Again, you could blame his 'psychosis' on the arsenic, but others in similar situations would have controlled themselves and he chose not to. Jammy bastard got away with it, but not if I have my way.

Now, does that make the James Maybrick as Jack the Spratt McVitie story believable? Well, that's one where only personal opinion really has any place. I'm willing to grant it, though I agree that there is no serial killer pre-behaviours on the record (not to say he wasn't a deviant and we just don't have the evidence) and it does seem a stretch to trundle down to Whitechapel, London, every time he wanted to rip like a ripe peach, et cetera, when he could have just nipped on an omni and done the same in Whitechapel, Liverpool. I'm willing to accept that that's what he chose to do and - I have no doubt - if my knowledge of serial killers was any better than it is, I'd probably be able to list a number of them who hopped in the old charabanc and motored through the mud of the old Roman roads to kill a long way from home for whatever reason suited them. Where is MrB when you need him?

In brief, there is an enormous gulf between a run-of-the-mill wife beater and 'Jack the Ripper,' otherwise the UK would have been full of 'Jack the Rippers' because wife beaters were two-a-penny in the Victorian era.

Absolutely. Wife-beaters are simply on a violence spectrum along which some of them may occasionally drift.

Ike

[rjpalmer]

Chikatilo killed because that was the only way he could maintain an erection and climax.

Oh bullshite, Ike.

I never took you for a man who would have "bought in" to the superficialities of Krafft-Ebing, but it looks like you have.

I suppose next you'll tell me that David Berkowitz thought of his .44 handgun as a substitute penis. A little-too Freudian for my liking.

There is something far more complex and psychologically elusive going on with these reprobates than simply an attempt to get a bone-on.

Indeed, if 'Ripperology' wanted to improve the quality of its thinking, the first task would be to toss most of the F.B.I. psycho-babble into the round file. Douglas & Co. weren't trained scientists. Much of their thinking is wildly circular and overly simplistic--great fodder for shockumentaries, but not to be taken seriously.

But thanks, anyway, Ike.