How to make Ripperology better?

[lynn cates]

sexism

Hello Robert. Thanks.

What, masculine form?

Sexist! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

What, with all those hymns?

[lynn cates]

Methodism

Hello Robert.

"Personally, I don't use a method."

Not a Methodist, eh? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Will the case ever be solved? - Maybe not.

Will the case be solved before I die? - Probably not.

Does that matter? - Nope.

Are we using the right method? - I'll leave that to you lot. Personally, I don't use a method.

[C. F. Leon]

I don't think that we will eer know who JtR was, short of Mr Peabody's Way-Back Machine or Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld (which went with The Royal Conspiracy).

Did anyone ever know? In spite of (usually much) later claims by various officials (often in Retirement), there seems to have been no concensus at the time, although there are some odd bits. The files were closed in 1892 as recall, which implies the none of the later murders were seriously considered officially to be the work of the 1888 killer. The focus on a "Polish Jew" (in spite of checking 'cattleboats' and such) seems to be an outgrowth of the Leather Apron business. It's really too bad that no reporter 20, 40, or so years later ever interviewed multiple surviving police officials on the murders, they may have gotten the 'Seaside Home' story and gotten more information about that. Not to mention they could have seen lost records from the City archives or asylum/medical records- or family information & pictures. As Robert said in one of the podcasts, these people KNEW more about these events than we will ever know because they were there at the time. Just the stuff that we KNOW is missing- photos, inquest testimony, medical reports, etc. is frustrating. As many have pointed out, research into the Kelly murder gets stymied because we can't trace any information about her under that name. And most of the secondary characters can't be found, either. We have fundamental questions about many of the major suspects- Druitt, Kosminski, 'Cohen', Tumelty, etc.

It's possible that the killer might have not ever thought of himself as the killer terrorizing London- if he couldn't read English, or was completely insane. ("What's this about somebody with a leather apron killing her?" or "What's going on? He didn't kill 15! I killed three of those whores.") If he had family, did he ever tell anyone or did someone figure it out? Well, there are apocryphal stories of such- Druitt and Kosminski in particular. There's ever stories that the Ripper was Catholic and confessed to his priest. Proof? None ever given.

What records are on the 'Most Wanted' list?

[Steve S]

I'd love it if the number of quotes,(and quotes within quotes) in one post could be limited...............Reading someone's attempt to answer someone else's attempt to pull their post apart one paragraph at a time...........

[lynn cates]

poll

Hello Colin. Perhaps a poll could help here? Maybe: 1. Fewer than the M5; 2. Exactly the M5; 3. More than the M5.

But the poll need not be pearly. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Of course, that wouldn't help the few who firmly believe "Jack" only attacked twice, or didn't even exist. And they tend to be the ones who believe they can solve the case. They don't believe in making it easy for themselves, is all I can say.
Caz
X

Exactly.

See the (hilarious) statement in Phil H's last post :

"At the moment I'd substract MJK and Stride and add in McKenzie".

And tomorrow is another day.

[Colin Roberts]

..., it is those in their "canonical bunkers" who make the difficulty - and scream as if outraged the moment anyone had the temerity to question their cherished conventional wisdom.

I wonder just how many 'Ripperologists' are actually holed up in "canonical bunkers".

In other words: what portion of students of this case believe in the Macnaghten Five, and just the Macnaghten Five?

I would estimate something on the order of twenty five percent.

[The Good Michael]

Jack the Ripper had a name, it's in an archive somewhere, as are records of his birth, death, where he lived, who he married, etc. But I doubt we'll ever ID him based on some document that still exists but is unknown, unless there really was a conspiracy to hide his identity (to prevent a pogrom, to protect certain well-off families, etc.)

Here's what I think: If a bunch of people (2000 or so) divided the names of all men living in the London area, excluding what we could predefine as suburban or a bit out of reach of easy metro transportation, and if we covered a time span of let's say 1860-1920, and used all records from all hospitals, asylums, workhouses and birth, death, and marriages...as well as criminal records, and we based our search on some agreed-upon criteria as to likelihood (criminal activity, medical treatment, mental health...whatever, I think we could come up with a few thousand people outside of the current suspect list and make a good stab (pardon the pun) at it.

Mike

[Phil H]

Of course, that wouldn't help the few who firmly believe "Jack" only attacked twice, or didn't even exist. And they tend to be the ones who believe they can solve the case. They don't believe in making it easy for themselves, is all I can say.

On the contrary, Caz, it is those in their "canonical bunkers" who make the difficulty - and scream as if outraged the moment anyone had the temerity to question their cherished conventional wisdom.

There is no real basis for the canonical five apart from Melville Macnaghten who was not there in 1888 and demonstrably got his facts wrong in other instances. So we should, and I do, feel free to question MM's assumption by adding or subtracting to and from that total.

At the moment i'd subtract MJK and stride and add in Mckenzie.

But get this, Caz, none of my musings (like modern adaptations of Shakespeare) remove, change or destroy the MM memorandum.

Nevertheless, it is those who cling so desperately (and sadly IMHO) to the "five2 who create the problems, because it could exclude killers who only struck once. Indeed, that may have been why suspects got away in 1888/8, because the police saw they had an alibi for one murder and absolved them of the lot.

Good hunting Caz, but intellectual bullying - damning all as heretical who disagree with you - is not pretty and wholly unnecessary.

Phil

[caz]

What is needed is not new opinions but new information. That lies in archive material. Trawling through hospital records and the like may not be as exciting as proposing yet another new suspect, but is ultimately far more worthwhile.

I agree. And you never know - a shiny new suspect could one day emerge from a combination of records, showing a certain individual's activities and movements between for example hospitals, lodgings, workplaces, courtrooms, prisons, and his eventual fate, which coincide perfectly with the dates and locations of the Whitechapel murders.

Of course, that wouldn't help the few who firmly believe "Jack" only attacked twice, or didn't even exist. And they tend to be the ones who believe they can solve the case. They don't believe in making it easy for themselves, is all I can say.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

What is needed is not new opinions but new information. That lies in archive material. Trawling through hospital records and the like may not be as exciting as proposing yet another new suspect, but is ultimately far more worthwhile.

Hi all,

As I stated earlier, the goal is reliable knowledge, and there are still misconceptions in the ripperology community. Huge ones existed with my favorite suspect just a few years ago. A few more corrections will be published in the near future, and then more to follow. Misconceptions create the illusion of truth, especially when they've been entrenched by hardnosed ripperologists.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Damaso Marte]

I think that if the answers are anywhere they are in an archive.

Jack the Ripper had a name, it's in an archive somewhere, as are records of his birth, death, where he lived, who he married, etc. But I doubt we'll ever ID him based on some document that still exists but is unknown, unless there really was a conspiracy to hide his identity (to prevent a pogrom, to protect certain well-off families, etc.)

[Damaso Marte]

The problem in this field is that many "facts" have become distorted to the point where any interpretation is possible.

This has been the problem whenever statistical social scientists or big-name police organization "profilers" become involved. They do things like assume that all C5 murders were done by the same person, or that all witnesses are believable, and thus their findings are open to attack by people who don't share those assumptions.

The kind of analysis I'd like to see would illuminate our dispute over what the facts actually are. They wouldn't attempt to solve the case, but would give us a sense of, e.g., how likely it is that Eddowes was a copycat or by the same hand as Chapman.