How to make Ripperology better?

[caz]

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.

Who are you talking about, Phil? Care to name names? Who screams as if 'outraged', apart from you in this rather hysterical post?

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.

I couldn't agree more. How many times have I criticised Mac for not supporting his opinions on the case? I regularly put up with Jonathan H screaming at me in outrage for doing exactly that. I can't win, can I?

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

That's entirely your affair, as it is mine to include all three - unless or until new evidence emerges to suggest otherwise.

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

You don't say. And there was I, thinking your musings were that powerful.

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.

Oh the irony - although I'm not sure how many you are damning here yourself. I have seen very few posters over the years who cling in any way, let alone desperately or sadly, to the "five2, whatever that may be.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Dum spiro, spero.

Hello Caroline.

"so I plump for at least two ripper victims"

Ah, so there is hope for you? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Oh no, Lynn, I am completely hopeless.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Thanks for the memory.

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

You remind me of how Leslie Hope (Bob) employed his name as a boy:

Hope, Leslie. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Oh no, Lynn, I am completely hopeless.

Love,

Caz
X

But not so "plump", I imagine?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I'm not sure how to make Ripperology better, but I have a suggestion for improving Ripperology's public reputation.

Casebook's Suspects page currently includes the entries; Lewis Carroll, "The Royal Conspiracy", and Prince Albert Victor. IMHO, that is not a good look. I'm sure sections of the public regard Ripperology as something semi-serious, or even a bit of a joke, when they see names like these on suspect lists, or in documentaries.

The process by which names are added, and possibly removed from the suspect list on this site, should be given consideration. Perhaps it should be made democratic, in some sense - as in more dependent on the opinions of the members - and less dependent on historical theories and beliefs.

If some members are unhappy about how Ripperology is perceived from the outside, then what they should be doing is thinking about the things they can control, that might be contributing to those perceptions.

[GUT]

I'm not sure how to make Ripperology better, but I have a suggestion for improving Ripperology's public reputation.

Casebook's Suspects page currently includes the entries; Lewis Carroll, "The Royal Conspiracy", and Prince Albert Victor. IMHO, that is not a good look. I'm sure sections of the public regard Ripperology as something semi-serious, or even a bit of a joke, when they see names like these on suspect lists, or in documentaries.

The process by which names are added, and possibly removed from the suspect list on this site, should be given consideration. Perhaps it should be made democratic, in some sense - as in more dependent on the opinions of the members - and less dependent on historical theories and beliefs.

If some members are unhappy about how Ripperology is perceived from the outside, then what they should be doing is thinking about the things they can control, that might be contributing to those perceptions.

If suspects are to be democratically elected, would anyone be left on the list?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

If suspects are to be democratically elected, would anyone be left on the list?

Que, sera sera

[Dupin]

I know casebook is not wikipedia, but I think most readers would expect any suspect they had read about to be listed, even if the listing poured scorn upon't.

That might cut out Carroll since it was only Richard Wallace's biography that suggested it, so the majority will not be aware of it. (Aside: As for opportunity, Carroll lived alone in his Oxford rooms and the GWR express train to London took just over an hour in those days. However it is vastly unlikely, since there are no allegations of violence or criminality, and that he was obsessed with a twelve year old is not evidence of insanity, however objectionable it was then and especially now - he did offer to marry Alice when she became of age - Prof Liddell refused and never spoke to him again.)

Maybe Carroll and other also-rans could be moved to an "other allegations" section.

As for the Royal Conspiracy: it is well documented however ludicrous, and many folk of my era will have come to know about the ripper through the excellent '73 Barlow and Watt series which put this forward as a cogent theory. So surely it should be listed.

Perhaps we need more subdivisions: "well researched suspects", such as Feigenbaum, and maybe Sickert, and "popular theories" such as the royal. (Not that I am saying Feigenbaum is not popular...)

[FISHY1118]

I'm not sure how to make Ripperology better, but I have a suggestion for improving Ripperology's public reputation.

Casebook's Suspects page currently includes the entries; Lewis Carroll, "The Royal Conspiracy", and Prince Albert Victor. IMHO, that is not a good look. I'm sure sections of the public regard Ripperology as something semi-serious, or even a bit of a joke, when they see names like these on suspect lists, or in documentaries.

The process by which names are added, and possibly removed from the suspect list on this site, should be given consideration. Perhaps it should be made democratic, in some sense - as in more dependent on the opinions of the members - and less dependent on historical theories and beliefs.

If some members are unhappy about how Ripperology is perceived from the outside, then what they should be doing is thinking about the things they can control, that might be contributing to those perceptions.

So how does this also help Ripperology's public reputation ? which is also not a good look, when we have posters spruiking theorys about organ harvesting, claiming the ripper didnt removing the organs they were done at the morge and calling it the ''real truth''

What about the theory that there was 'Noooooo Jack the Ripper at all'' ? a little less Deconstructing needed on that one im afraid.

Who can forget the Maybrick Diary ,hmmm lets not go there shall we .

My point being, just because someone doesnt like a suspect or thoery , i dont think they should be removed because to someone thinks there no longer relevant !. Where would it stop ??

Im my point will be missed on most tho, as the replys will surely attest to that , so ill say it now for those. ... you missed my point .

[Iconoclast]

What about the theory that there was 'Noooooo Jack the Ripper at all'' ? a little less Deconstructing needed on that one im afraid.

Who can forget the Maybrick Diary ,hmmm lets not go there shall we .

The greatest challenge to Ripperology in the 21st-century is that the novelty is waning. The volume is growing (it's now a business, after all - put 'Jack the Ripper' in the title of a book about Peruvian fish and you'd definitely bag yourself some sales instead of none), but the newness is fading. The interest in the case is high, perhaps never higher, but as each day passes we get further and further away from the truth, and that is because there is more ambivalence and contradiction out there than there is facts. This is a massive problem because if we keep distilling the same barley, we will get weaker and weaker whisky until eventually everyone goes off whisky and starts distilling rum.

I think about this constantly. How to find new facts in a case which is 130 years old? It is unlikely. In 1992, we got our hands on a scrapbook. In 1993, we got our hands on a watch. Both pointed directly at a brand new candidate. At last we had something concrete to reflect upon but instead of distilling the barley carefully, we destroyed the stills. We felt threatened and we went looking to destroy the stills. There was something we didn't like about the possibility of finding an answer to this perennial question and that's the thing we should be most concerned about, not how a particular repository of information and comment is structured. Thirty years later, we find it perfectly acceptable to not properly investigate the scrapbook and the watch and yet still post trenchant - generally utterly dismissive - opinions about what we don't really understand very much.

This post is not about James Maybrick. It is a defence of the possible in the face of a withering criticism from an audience who do not always appear to know much about what they're casually dismissing and - perhaps inadvertently - progressively destroying. When new readers come to this site, their grasp of the possible is immediately constrained by the implication that to believe a certain position is to be somehow retarded. The inevitable outcome is either that they turn away in disgust or that they turn around in their views without ever really wanting to. So Simon Wood's theory of there being no single Jack and my defence of the Maybrick candidature secure such slender consideration as to be far worse than a mere dismissal. Now I've been known to post the occasional firm view myself so I'm not seeking to stand aside and suggest the problem lies with the rest of you. I include myself when I say the field of Ripperology is moribund. It is dying a terrible, slow death each year, month, week, and day because we refuse to give proper airtime to the possible.

And yet the possible can only live or die based upon the evidence not simply our biased, ill-informed opinions. Those people who say the Casebook should be about the evidence already have their solution in the Wiki but that would not address the frequent vacuousness of the Casebook discussion forums. When I first signed up to the Casebook, I was expecting intelligent, honest, open discussion about - in my case - the Maybrick candidature. It took probably no more than a few hours for me to realise that that was not going to be on the agenda. Instead, there'd be just a lot of dismissing to be had. I remember a brilliant poster called Tempus Omnia Revelat who just gave up on posting because of the lack of real scholarly discussion about his various proposals. He made the mistake of making proposals about James Maybrick so - of course - people piled-in for a slapfest. Tempus left us. Personally, I kept going because I genuinely believe that there is a solution to be had to the Jack the Ripper murders and there are few other places to express my beliefs and put forward my case than here, so I keep living in hope that we will have intelligent, honest, and open discussions and that we will focus our attention on the actual evidence (of which there is so very very little that we can reliably agree upon) with a view to establishing reasoned agreement around what is realistic and what is unrealistic to say is true about the Whitechapel murders of 1888 including - one day, I fervently hope - who committed them.

Ike

[MrBarnett]

I’m sorry Ike, I don’t quite recognise the dearth of new facts you describe. All sorts of interesting new info has come to light in recent years. But by and large it goes in one ear and out the other.

[Iconoclast]

I’m sorry Ike, I don’t quite recognise the dearth of new facts you describe. All sorts of interesting new info has come to light in recent years. But by and large it goes in one ear and out the other.

Hi MrB.,

Happy to be corrected. What sort of new facts have emerged in recent years which have any kind of material impact on our likelihood of ever unravelling the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was?

Cheers,

Ike

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrB.,

Happy to be corrected. What sort of new facts have emerged in recent years which have any kind of material impact on our likelihood of ever unravelling the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was?

Cheers,

Ike

The identity of one of the victims, previously unknown.

The fact that a key witness in the case had a violent, mentally unstable husband who was also previously unknown.

The fact that Polly Nichols’ Wandsworth employer was not a doddery old baptist lay preacher but his son, and man who abandoned his wife and left England within a year or two of the murders.

Thats just three that immediately come to
mind because I had some involvement in them.

Who knows what further investigation into those subjects might bring to light. Who knows what other interesting pieces of info may pop up
out of nowhere.

[Iconoclast]

The identity of one of the victims, previously unknown.
The fact that a key witness in the case had a violent, mentally unstable husband who was also previously unknown.
The fact that Polly Nichols’ Wandsworth employer was not a doddery old baptist lay preacher but his son, and man who abandoned his wife and left England within a year or two of the murders.

Who knows what further investigation into those subjects might bring to light. Who knows what other interesting pieces of info may pop up
out of nowhere.

Ah, yes, MrB., these are presumably well-researched and admirable in themselves, but I see where our approaches potentially differ and perhaps therefore our reasons for posting as I do not find them 'interesting' in the slightest. None of these are routes towards unravelling the mystery of who Jack was, and that's fine if that's what floats your boat, but I'm only here - solely here - to understand what we can agree is categorically true about the Ripper himself. His name is the only uncertainty I seek an answer to. The moment that's done, I'm out of here. You pays your money and you makes your choice and all that. It is precisely this difference which makes it difficult to answer Ally's original question from nine years ago - what you seek from the Casebook may not be what I seek and what have you.

Hence, my point, above. Our knowledge of Jack is moribund. There is almost nothing available to us to answer that question and almost no likelihood of anything being uncovered which would help us in that specific challenge. Novelty is not waning in the peripheral analysis - that which brings us no closer to Jack but at least sheds more light on the times or on the characters involved. The novelty I am interested in is that which unravels Jack.

You'll notice I typed 'almost', however ...

Cheers,

Ike

PS I've just noticed that the final sentence of my post #131 distinctly contradicts the position I've just taken so I'll accept that I was more liberal in my stated aims than I really am, which made your examples relevant but my original comment not so. More accurately, I should have typed:

Personally, I kept going because I genuinely believe that there is a solution to be had to the Jack the Ripper murders and there are few other places to express my beliefs and put forward my case than here, so I keep living in hope that we will have intelligent, honest, and open discussions and that we will focus our attention on the actual evidence (of which there is so very very little that we can reliably agree upon) with a view to establishing reasoned agreement around what is realistic and what is unrealistic to say is true about the Whitechapel murders of 1888 specifically - one day, I fervently hope - who committed them.