How to make Ripperology better?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Colin.

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

Precisely.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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.

[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

[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!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

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

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.)

[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

[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

[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