How to make Ripperology better?

[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 .

[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...)

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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

Que, sera sera

[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]

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.

[Wickerman]

Oh no, Lynn, I am completely hopeless.

Love,

Caz
X

But not so "plump", I imagine?

[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

[caz]

Oh no, Lynn, I am completely hopeless.

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]

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

[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

[lynn cates]

responding

Hello Colin. Thanks.

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

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]

agreed

Hello Dave. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Sexist or not....

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

All the best

Dave