How to make Ripperology better?

[The Good Michael]

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.)

Here's what I think: If a bunch of people (2000 or so) divided the names of all men living in the London area, excluding what we could predefine as suburban or a bit out of reach of easy metro transportation, and if we covered a time span of let's say 1860-1920, and used all records from all hospitals, asylums, workhouses and birth, death, and marriages...as well as criminal records, and we based our search on some agreed-upon criteria as to likelihood (criminal activity, medical treatment, mental health...whatever, I think we could come up with a few thousand people outside of the current suspect list and make a good stab (pardon the pun) at it.

Mike

[Colin Roberts]

..., 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.

I wonder just how many 'Ripperologists' are actually holed up in "canonical bunkers".

In other words: what portion of students of this case believe in the Macnaghten Five, and just the Macnaghten Five?

I would estimate something on the order of twenty five percent.

[DVV]

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.
Caz
X

Exactly.

See the (hilarious) statement in Phil H's last post :

"At the moment I'd substract MJK and Stride and add in McKenzie".

And tomorrow is another day.

[lynn cates]

poll

Hello Colin. Perhaps a poll could help here? Maybe: 1. Fewer than the M5; 2. Exactly the M5; 3. More than the M5.

But the poll need not be pearly. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Steve S]

I'd love it if the number of quotes,(and quotes within quotes) in one post could be limited...............Reading someone's attempt to answer someone else's attempt to pull their post apart one paragraph at a time...........

[C. F. Leon]

I don't think that we will eer know who JtR was, short of Mr Peabody's Way-Back Machine or Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld (which went with The Royal Conspiracy).

Did anyone ever know? In spite of (usually much) later claims by various officials (often in Retirement), there seems to have been no concensus at the time, although there are some odd bits. The files were closed in 1892 as recall, which implies the none of the later murders were seriously considered officially to be the work of the 1888 killer. The focus on a "Polish Jew" (in spite of checking 'cattleboats' and such) seems to be an outgrowth of the Leather Apron business. It's really too bad that no reporter 20, 40, or so years later ever interviewed multiple surviving police officials on the murders, they may have gotten the 'Seaside Home' story and gotten more information about that. Not to mention they could have seen lost records from the City archives or asylum/medical records- or family information & pictures. As Robert said in one of the podcasts, these people KNEW more about these events than we will ever know because they were there at the time. Just the stuff that we KNOW is missing- photos, inquest testimony, medical reports, etc. is frustrating. As many have pointed out, research into the Kelly murder gets stymied because we can't trace any information about her under that name. And most of the secondary characters can't be found, either. We have fundamental questions about many of the major suspects- Druitt, Kosminski, 'Cohen', Tumelty, etc.

It's possible that the killer might have not ever thought of himself as the killer terrorizing London- if he couldn't read English, or was completely insane. ("What's this about somebody with a leather apron killing her?" or "What's going on? He didn't kill 15! I killed three of those whores.") If he had family, did he ever tell anyone or did someone figure it out? Well, there are apocryphal stories of such- Druitt and Kosminski in particular. There's ever stories that the Ripper was Catholic and confessed to his priest. Proof? None ever given.

What records are on the 'Most Wanted' list?

[Robert]

Will the case ever be solved? - Maybe not.

Will the case be solved before I die? - Probably not.

Does that matter? - Nope.

Are we using the right method? - I'll leave that to you lot. Personally, I don't use a method.

[lynn cates]

Methodism

Hello Robert.

"Personally, I don't use a method."

Not a Methodist, eh? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

What, with all those hymns?

[lynn cates]

sexism

Hello Robert. Thanks.

What, masculine form?

Sexist! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Sexist or not....

In this particular case hymns are always preferable to hearse...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

agreed

Hello Dave. Thanks.

I'll drink to that. Anyone for a cold bier? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

..., 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.

I wonder just how many 'Ripperologists' are actually holed up in "canonical bunkers".

In other words: what portion of students of this case believe in the Macnaghten Five, and just the Macnaghten Five?

I would estimate something on the order of twenty five percent.

Hello Colin. Perhaps a poll could help here? Maybe: 1. Fewer than the M5; 2. Exactly the M5; 3. More than the M5.

Of course we've seen several polls, Lynn, in which the portions of respondents that believe ... in a particular victim ... are gauged.

These polls are not scientific for several reasons: fly by night respondents; a lack of more studious respondents such as Paul Begg and Stewart Evans, who both typically refrain from responding to forum queries of this sort; etc.

But in any case, the following figures are quite consistent with the responses that we have seen over the years:

- Smith: 3%
- Tabram: 54%
- Nichols: 96%
- Chapman: 99%
- Stride: 77%
- Eddowes: 91%
- Kelly: 84%
- Mylett: 2%
- McKenzie: 23%
- Torso: 1%
- Coles: 12%

In order to estimate the percentage of respondents that voted for each of the M5, we simply multiply through each of the respective M5 percentages.

- Nichols: 96%
- Chapman: 99%
- Stride: 77%
- Eddowes: 91%
- Kelly: 84%

- M5: 55.94%

In order to estimate the percentage of respondents that voted for each of the M5 - and no others, we multiply through each of the respective M5 percentages, as well as each of the respective 'Not' percentages that are associated with the other victims.

- Not Smith: 97%
- Not Tabram: 46%
- Nichols: 96%
- Chapman: 99%
- Stride: 77%
- Eddowes: 91%
- Kelly: 84%
- Not Mylett: 98%
- Not McKenzie: 77%
- Not Torso: 99%
- Not Coles: 88%

- M5 / Only M5: 16.41%

So does just sixteen percent of the field believe in the M5 and just the M5? I doubt it.

But does anymore than ... let's say ... twenty five percent of the field ... believe in the same? I doubt that as well.

But let's be really conservative and say that as many as one in three 'Ripperologists' - i.e. 33.33% - believes in the so-called canon: the Macnaghten Five, and just the Macnaghten Five.

Does that a consensus make? 33%?

Of course not!

And if there is no consensus, then there most certainly is no canon.

In keeping with the spirit of this thread's premise, I would say that one of the most significant things that could be done to make 'Ripperology' more respectable, is the absolute discontinuation of the use of the terms canon, canonic, and canonical with respect to a particular set of presumed victims of 'Jack the Ripper'.

[lynn cates]

responding

Hello Colin. Thanks.

One could offer that polls show that, "Of those who respond to polls, X% believe . . ."

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

And if there is no consensus, then there most certainly is no canon.

In keeping with the spirit of this thread's premise, I would say that one of the most significant things that could be done to make 'Ripperology' more respectable, is the absolute discontinuation of the use of the terms canon, canonic, and canonical with respect to a particular set of presumed victims of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Hi Colin,

I agree entirely. Another good thing would be the absolute discontinuation of wilful misrepresentation of other posters' oft-stated positions, eg when Phil H implied some kind of adherence on my part to the Macnaghten Five (no relation to the Dave Clark Five) and my intellectual 'bullying' (do me a favour, Phil ) of anyone who disagrees.

It's very wearing having to keep putting the record straight but here we go again: I have an open mind on the number of "Jack's" victims, but not so open that all my brains have fallen out, so I plump for at least two ripper victims, but probably many, many more, given the extreme closeness in time and space, victim type and violence, that would be pretty much unprecedented and unrepeated as a long series of completely unrelated attacks, but very much on a par with documented cases of serial murder - far too many simply to ignore as irrelevant.

While on the subject of discontinuing terms such as canon, canonic and canonical, we could send other c words the same way: cartel, clique and cabal included.

But before anyone says it, please don't get rid of caz or Colin yet!

Love,

Caz
X