How to make Ripperology better?

[lynn cates]

no one individual

Hello Damaso.

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

Completely agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Damaso Marte]

What social science can do is give us insights into what is plausible and what isn't, moving us beyond anecdote and intuition, which is currently how we operate.

Privided it is a "science" and not a fad like the victorian fascination with phrenology. Historians, about whom you seem to know little, rarely deal in anecdote or intuition.

Sorry, I was referring to casebook posters in threads on this forum, not historians in general or casebook posters when they are engaging in methodologically rigorous history.

And actually, I should have added "unsupported assertions" to what I said.

Historians can help here too. It seems the current trend is to research the background of witnesses to determine their credibility...a few have been shown to have major skeletons in the closet.

Thank you for your patronising condecension. You appear not to keep up with developments in the firld.

What about the marginalia, the documents returned in the late 80s? What about the discovery, through research of the possible link between Kosminski and the Berner St area? Or Scott Nelson's discovery of a potential link between 254 Whitechapel Road and the Mitre Square witness Joseph Hyam Levy? All these a new and exciting and would have been unthought of before HISTORIANS (call them researchers if you will) realised what the importance of these additional pieces of information might be.

Historians are trained to interrogate these documents, to search out and retrieve information from archives, to carry out textual criticism.

I could add Martin Fido's work on the mental institution inmates which led to much of the more recent Kosminski work. Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow's work on (in particular the police) but in Stewart's case also on Tumblety (unknown to most, at least in the JtR context, before his book). Paul Begg in getting at the facts as against the myth.

I'm aware of most of these things, but none of them are dispositive in the sense of proving that any one suspect did it. My hypothesis is that there is nothing out there left to discover that will dispositively point to one individual.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Bah, you'll drink to ANYTHING. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Well, Lynn, there are clever statements and there are daft ones. And there are glorious whiskies just as there are drab ones.

So it can be a tough, tough call. Kosminski and Doctor´s Special? Gull and MacAllan? Lechmere and Ardbeg?

Now, there´s a thought ...!

... and no jokes about " a lot of smoke", please!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

When I first started reading/posting on the boards, there was a rule that said something like "Remember! NO ONE knows who Jack the Ripper was. You do not know either. Please refrain from making the declaration that you do know."

That's paraphrasing of course....but a damn good rule it was and bears repeating in large letters.

As long as it bears the appendix "We owe it to ourselves to do our best to find out!", why not ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

drink

Hello Christer. Bah, you'll drink to ANYTHING. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Brenda]

.

When I first started reading/posting on the boards, there was a rule that said something like "Remember! NO ONE knows who Jack the Ripper was. You do not know either. Please refrain from making the declaration that you do know."

That's paraphrasing of course....but a damn good rule it was and bears repeating in large letters.

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards:

There is a finite amount of data, and yet endless possibilities. Fresh perspectives keep this study evolving.

Now, there´s a stance I´ll drink to! Seconded!!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

For Monty,

I would define someone as an "expert" in this area of study purely by the volume of information studied, ...I realize that in the traditional sense that marker wouldnt be sufficient to classify someone as an expert, but the only people I find truly engaging are the ones that have read virtually everything they can get their hands on and have been at this Ripperology business for some years.

There are a lot of "Empirical Statements" made by contemporary sources and modern theorists that do not meet the standards implicit in that term, and until you have read the press, the biographies, the official statements and reports, the inner office memorandums, the dissertations, the crime scene evidence, the medical experts opinions, the opinions of contemporary investigators and modern theorists,.. .etc.....you cannot offer an opinion that can be considered fully formed.

That does not mean that any ideas that someone less informed may offer on discussions boards have no value, which is why I favor open discussions....because, lets face it,...people have different abilities when it comes to problem solving and data interpretation, and a newbie can, and sometimes does, offer valuable insights based on their abilities to analyze and their own perceptions.

I know some students that have years of study and yet lack the ability to truly understand what they have read, and some that see through the rhetoric and misdirection despite their lacking depth of knowledge in the specifics of the cases. Without the experts and the newbies working together there is little hope for any true understanding of these events, in my opinion of course. There is a finite amount of data, and yet endless possibilities. Fresh perspectives keep this study evolving.

Best regards, you 'ol expert, Monty

[Phil H]

Each to their own Colin.

[Colin Roberts]

Colin wrote:

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?

Do you know I have never seen that "asserted"?

I have seen a question asked, well supported within a context, and not unreasonably expressed.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=263869#post263869

Interestingly statistics are not the answer to everything ...

I have never suggested that statistics provide the answers to anything.

I have merely suggested that they provide meaningful perspective; but I think I prefer Damaso Marte's use of the term insight.

[lynn cates]

etiquette

Hello Neil, Ally, Phil. For what little it is worth, I paste below the instrument I was given to supply guidelines for class room posting.

Cheers.
LC

Netiquette--Or How to Play Nice!

One of the most common concerns people voice about this medium is the challenge of being limited to the written word. However, there are limitations in all mediums. I'm sure we have all said something we wished we could take back? In this medium, we have the benefit of thinking before we "speak" (post) and committing ourselves to a statement that is incorrect - or insensitive.

Just as our society has rules of conduct which govern our interactions with one another in the face-to-face (f2f) environment, so, too, does the virtual community have rules of conduct for our electronic interactions. You are, no doubt, familiar with the word etiquette - in the online environment, we use the term netiquette.

There are a number of things each of us can do to enhance and improve our communications, whether they are f2f or virtual. In addition to the content of the message itself, effective communicators are attentive to tone of voice and body language (visual cues) in f2f interactions. We need to also be attentive to those areas in our virtual interactions. The fact that we are not in a f2f environment does not eliminate the need for us to be mindful of the tone of our messages ("Respond to me as soon as possible" sets a different tone than does "Please respond to me as soon as possible.") as well as their visual appearance ("PLEASE CALL ME" is viewed differently than "Please call me.")

Other recommendations include
• Stay on topic. While discussion is encouraged in our classrooms, rambling and off-topic conversations are not conducive to a quality learning experience.
• Use appropriate subject lines. As a conversation evolves, the subject may change and it is helpful if the subject line is changed to reflect the topic addressed in the message.
• Be attentive to editing your replies. If you're responding to a message, quote the relevant and specific passage or summarize it for those who may have missed it. Do not make people guess what you are talking about, especially if you are responding to a particular message.
• Maintain professional and respectful dialogue at all times. Just as you shouldn't drive when you are angry, you should not send e-mail responses when you are mad at someone. Go ahead and type a response, but do not mail it until the next day. Chances are that when you come back later to read your response, you'll be glad that you did not send it.
• Uphold the standards of Academic Honesty set forth by the University. Never copy someone else's writing without permission or citation; always acknowledge your sources and remember the emphasis is on your learning: What do you think? What is your analysis? What examples can you offer from your own experiences?
• Avoid ''I agree'' and ''Me too!'' messages. It is very frustrating to find lots of messages with very little substance. Remember that e-mail communication can be "labor-intensive" and that it takes time to read numerous messages.
• Avoid the use of all caps. (IT'S LIKE SHOUTING!) You can do it occasionally for strong emphasis, but only for individual words.
• Recognize that we are "talking" with one another, not "writing to" one another. Despite the fact all of our communications are in writing, it doesn't mean all of our writings are "formal" writing assignments and are, therefore, subject to the rules of written communication. Messages in the main classroom are conversation and are quite often informal (and prone to occasional grammatical, spelling and typographical errors). However, despite that informality, we should still make the effort to transmit messages that are readable and understandable.
• Contribute your efforts to building a collaborative learning environment. Be positive in your approach to others and careful about your words. Since we cannot see each other, it is hard to tell if you are bashful, bored, sarcastic, or just kidding. I expect you to be kind to one another and excel. You are not in competition for grades. Do not confuse winning a competition with meeting a standard of excellence. They definitely are not the same things here. Use discussions to develop your skills in collaboration and teamwork.

Becoming an effective communicator in the Online environment is important to your success in the classroom. Unlike many of our other email and/or newsgroup experiences (messages to/from personal friends and family, electronic communication in the workplace, participation in Internet chat rooms), the Online classroom is a collaborative learning environment - and that is best accomplished in an atmosphere in which each participant feels respected and valued. Our ongoing efforts to improve our communication skills in this environment are an important part of ensuring that atmosphere for everyone.

Netiquette Links:

University of California, Berkeley (Good Comprehensive Netiquette Guide):

http://itpolicy.berkeley.edu:7015/policy/netiq.html

The Net: User Guidelines and Netiquette By Arlene H. Rinaldi (The standard):

http://www.fau.edu/netiquette/net/index.html

University of Minnesota (Brief but to the point):

http://webct.umn.edu/students/tips/tips_5.shtml

Further Netiquette Links :

http://www.sd104.s-cook.k12.il.us/netiquette.htm

[Phil H]

What is "internet ettiquette"?

Colin wrote:

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?

Do you know I have never seen that "asserted"?

I have seen a question asked, well supported within a context, and not unreasonably expressed. But then perhaps debate and discussion ISN'T what you are looking for.

Interestingly statistics are not the answer to everything - otherwise elections in democracies would be carried out with around 1,000 individuals being polled, and we'd be told that the result was staistically significant and reliable. B*****ks.

Phil

[Monty]

Yes Ally,

If I recall, guidelines use to be on this site many moons ago.

Monty

[Ally]

And maybe using internet etiquette would improve things.

Monty

There's internet etiquette?

[Monty]

And maybe using internet etiquette would improve things.

Monty