How to make Ripperology better?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

An absolute has functioned as a restriction for the past 125 years.

Regards,

Simon

[Barnaby]

I wonder how seriously one academic takes published work that said person finds disagreeable? In my discipline, there are cliques, dividing along roughly paradigmal lines. Frequently, one will not read works outside one's own view.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Of course. Just because it is published in a reputable journal doesn't mean it is true or even that it will even be read by anyone other than your three closest colleagues. And two of them may disagree with your findings. Heck, I've published empirical findings that I've come to not believe over the years!

[Barnaby]

And just which "mainstream academic journals," already staggering under the load of submissions from professionals, do you expect to publish Ripper articles by amateurs?
Don.

Hi Don,

I'm not a historian, so I am not familiar with the journals in that field, nor the submission numbers and percent rejects. A quick Google search returned a number of scholarly journals focused on Victorian issues.

Best,

Barnaby

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Uh huh

Hi All,

We will eventually arrive at a solution to the Whitechapel murders.

But Damaso Marte remains correct—

" . . . there is nothing out there left to discover that will dispositively point to one individual."

Regards,

Simon

The question would then be, is it the correct one? To respond to the latter, destinctly possible, but it is not set in stone. Absolutes function as restrictions. Primarily of course. Lacking theory bias tends to be a good launch point. Residing point as well. I love you guys.

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

We will eventually arrive at a solution to the Whitechapel murders.

But Damaso Marte remains correct—

" . . . there is nothing out there left to discover that will dispositively point to one individual."

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Agreed.


Phil

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Colin.

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

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

"We Want Information"

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.

[Bridewell]

So we might, for example, use certain demographics to assess the plausibility of a multi-perpetrator 'Double Event', rather than staring ENDLESSLY at the same press reports and witness statements, whilst blindly assuming that little Jacky would never have ventured south of Whitechapel High Street without mummy and daddy to hold his hand and make sure that he looked both ways before crossing the thoroughfare?

One of the wittiest posts I've seen for a long time.

[Supe]

Barnaby,

If these same stories were published in mainstream academic journals, they would get more attention from reputable media that routinely cover stories of historical significance (e.g., CNN).

Can't think of a better reason to leave things as they are. Seriously, I was once an academic and I have been an editor at three different publications in this field that provided a fair amount of peer review through the editors and also provided a real opportunity for amateurs (remembering especially the derivation of the word) to publish their ideas.

And just which "mainstream academic journals," already staggering under the load of submissions from professionals, do you expect to publish Ripper articles by amateurs?

Don.

[Bridewell]

Ripperologists today seem like mostly historians by methodology, and while I respect this, the answers aren't out there in some archive.

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

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

We will eventually arrive at a solution to the Whitechapel murders.

But Damaso Marte remains correct—

" . . . there is nothing out there left to discover that will dispositively point to one individual."

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

Ripperology, like all other -ologies, consists of two distinct parts:
(a) ascertaining the facts;
(b) analyzing the facts

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

[lynn cates]

mainstream

Hello Barnaby. I appreciate your favourable view of academia.

You note that: "And by using the existing peer-reviewed structure within academia, quality research is automatically elevated over the pulp fiction."

Quite so. But I wonder how seriously one academic takes published work that said person finds disagreeable? In my discipline, there are cliques, dividing along roughly paradigmal lines. Frequently, one will not read works outside one's own view.

Quick example from social science: RD Laing and Thomas Szasz have adopted views beyond the mainstream. Are their published works highly regarded by those who disagree with them?

Cheers.
LC

[Barnaby]

I think that excellent work has been published on this case both recently and over the years. The problem is that - although we have an excellent journal to publish credible research (the Ripperologist) - it is difficult for those in the mainstream to separate this work from the utter garbage that also finds its way into print under the banner of "Ripperology." Perhaps I am biased as an academic (and a disparaged social scientist no less!), but I feel that the excellent research being done should find its way into reputable peer-reviewed academic journals. I'm sure some will respond that this is elitist, however:

1. Authors do not need to have a degree or work professionally as an academic to have their work reviewed. Provided the authors use proper research methodology associated with their discipline, quality research stands a chance of being accepted.
2. When something serious is published in our field, few outsiders notice. If these same stories were published in mainstream academic journals, they would get more attention from reputable media that routinely cover stories of historical significance (e.g., CNN). And by using the existing peer-reviewed structure within academia, quality research is automatically elevated over the pulp fiction.

[Damaso Marte]

Let me clarify my position:

Ripperology, like all other -ologies, consists of two distinct parts:
(a) ascertaining the facts;
(b) analyzing the facts

Historians do (a). I don't think that the historians doing Ripperologist work have any deficiency. New things are still being learned with every issue of the newsletter. (a) is limited by the new information available, and I am unabashedly pessimistic about the existence of any unknown evidence that will break the case wide open.

(b), at least as it exists on this discussion forum, I think really lacks rigor, and that is why I want to get a good statistical social scientist involved. Too many people say things like "it is obvious that facial mutilations mean the killer knew the victim" or "killers do not [or do] dramatically change their MO during a spree" without really having anything to back it up except their own opinion, anecdotal evidence, assertions, etc.

If we did learn, for example, that facial mutilations mean a pre-existing killer-victim relationship in 90% of cases, that would dramatically enhance our ability to analyze the facts.