Solving or Understanding?

[TomTomKent]

So it is no surprise that there are many different members here, with many different views on the case. But the discussion in the Kosminski thread has spurred of in a direction I think might be worth a look at if it hasn't been flogged to death already.

So at one end of the spectrum are those who think the most interesting or important aspect of the case is to identify the murderers. Solvers. On the other is those who purely want to identify as much historical detail as possible to bring the bigger picture into focus. Understanders.

I doubt anybody truly sits at one end of the spectrum or the other. Yet some people seem to think the Marginalia or Memorandum are of little interest outside of solving the case. Others could not give a hoot if Random Suspect A really was more likely to be the murderer than Random Suspect B, if they can find evidence of why A or B were considered suspects at all.

So, where on the scale are you? Do you think solving the mystery is more fun, or interesting than understanding the bigger picture? Or is it the historical context that excites you?

Me? I think it is pretty clear we don't have the evidence to solve the case to anything other than personal satisfaction and over the years I have grown less interested in suspects and more interested in why the officers investigating reached their conclusions. (Which has plenty to do with lurking here and reading the discussions I am afraid). The more I understand about the case the more mysteries there are that seem to be out there to be solved that are equally as interesting as some 'orrible little murderer.

[Hunter]

No time to elaborate at the moment, but I agree with you TTK. The history, the people involved... are fascinating on their own merit.

[Hunter]

"Understanding," of course, the fact that had this not been a great unsolved mystery, historical interest -- at least mine anyway -- may not have had the catalyst for pursuit. After all, tragedies are always of greatest historical interest beyond a few specialized academic studies.

How well did Wynne Baxter's book on Milton sell for example?

[gnote]

I find the history fascinating but I would put myself more to the "solver" side of the scale. I like puzzles and figuring them out, or reading about cases that have been cracked. It's not just crime, but mysteries in general. For example when i see a magician perform i want to know what the secret was behind the trick(s).

This does not mean that i don't appreciate the craft or can't enjoy a performance without knowing the solution.

While there is so much to learn outside of the identity of the Ripper, at the end of the day it's an unsolved mystery. A solution or even the remote possibility of one forthcoming i think brings most of us here.

[Cogidubnus]

Understanding for my part...the history is fascinating in itself, but in my case (and I suspect a good many others on here) it's also something of a peep back into a time and place where members of ones own family were struggling to survive...so there's something personal in it too.

All the best

Dave

[SirJohnFalstaff]

While I am always curious about people's hypothesis of "who did it?", my only interest is about the climate.
How was life before, so I can understand the changes that happened during the AoT, and what changed after.

But mostly, it's how life was while Jack was haunting the streets, and the press.

I very could become a solver, if I lived in England, but from where I stand, the general view is more interesting.

[Bridewell]

I don't think that there is any prospect whatsoever of sufficient evidence being unearthed to bring about universal consensus as to the identity of the killer. Seeing new material unearthed is always good, wherever it leads - one of the reasons why I am looking forward to Ed & Christer's programme tomorrow night.

Where I think progress may one day be made is in identifying the victim we know as Mary Kelly. It is almost impossible that she is not in the historical record somewhere.

[GUT]

Where I think progress may one day be made is in identifying the victim we know as Mary Kelly. It is almost impossible that she is not in the historical record somewhere.

But if she's not MJK how will we know if we find her.

[GUT]

We can understand without solving, but I doubt we can solve without understanding.

[lynn cates]

same

Hello Tom. Good question.

I think these are two sides of the same coin. Once we truly understand, then a solution is imminent.

Cheers.
LC

[Ginger]

An excellent question. The identity of the murderer is of course a fascinating question, but far more interesting to me is the larger society in which the crimes occurred, and why that society and some of its responses appear so odd to us, with our own set of social conditioning to view them from.

[Bridewell]

But if she's not MJK how will we know if we find her.

With great difficulty - but someone will find her. I don't think we'll ever know who killed all these women but I do think (and hope) that MJK will be traced in the historical records.

[TomTomKent]

With great difficulty - but someone will find her. I don't think we'll ever know who killed all these women but I do think (and hope) that MJK will be traced in the historical records.

I think we may face a situation where plausible identities of MJK are compared and debated as hotly as identities of Jack.