How to make Ripperology better?

[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.

[Phil H]

Each to their own Colin.

[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

[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

[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.

[lynn cates]

drink

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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