Tweet
Hi,
Halloween is coming up and why not spend it trying to solve one of the biggest questions in ripperology?
The question I have chosen is intimately connected to Jack the Ripper and James Monro.
I call it The Monro Standpoint (his own word).
I know that various aspects of The Monro Standpoint have been debated in the forum earlier. But debaters often change and develope their views.
And the question of how the standpoint should be interpreted has no solution yet. It remains a mystery.
The Monro Standpoint relies on very sparse data. But this also gives us a great chance to discuss the meaning of it and perhaps find valid and reliable answers.
(We tend to sometimes have to much data from 1888. We have to make choices along the way which lead us away from good answers. We donīt se the answer for all the data. But not in this matter.)
So here we go.
First of all Iīd like to disconnect the standpoint of Monro from Macnaghten and from the so called Macnaghten memoranda. The disconnection is based on the fact that Macnaghten did not join Scotland Yard until after the canonical murders.
Once we have disconnected the sparce sources of Monro from the later source of Macnaghten we can begin to analyze The Monro Standpoint by reading the following short text about Monro from the Casebook
(If someone has a link to the original sources not mentioned in this text, that would naturally be most valuable):
"We may not know what his theory was but we do know he had one because in 1890 he told Cassells Magazine he had "decidedly" formed a theory and "When I do theorise it is from a practical standpoint and not upon any visionary foundation." His grandson Christopher remembers him saying "Jack the Ripper should have been caught." Even more exciting, he was supposed to have left his eldest son Charles some papers relating to the case. If these ever existed they were probably destroyed by Charles Monro but he told a younger brother Douglas that their father's theory on the case was "a very hot potato."
What could have been Monro's theory?"
(http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-monro.html)
And from our analyze of the text we can pose the following (and more) questions:
A) What can ”Jack the Ripper SHOULD have been caught” mean?
1. Does the text have a strong meaning, saying that they did not catch him even if they actually COULD have done so? (Should is then interpreted as could - but they chose not to do so). If yes/no – why/why not?
2. If the text (hypothetically) is correctly interpreted as having this type of strong meaning; could the commentary that Monros standpoint was ”a very hot potato” mean that the interpretation of ”should have been caught” as strong is the right interpretation? If yes/no – why/why not?
3. What is the best ”objective” (not connected to the Monro Standpoint) interpretation of the expression ”a very hot potato”?
4. Could we use a dictionary for instance and say that the best interpretation could be something like
”A problem that is so controversial or sensitive that those handling it risk unpleasant consequences”
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hot+potato)
(Iīn not very interested in using dictionaries but it can be a starting point for discussions)
If yes/no – why/why not?
B) What does a ”practical” standpoint mean?
1. Could it for instance mean:
”relating to experience, real situations, or actions rather than ideas or imagination”
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/practical)
If yes/no – why/why not?
2. Could we interprete a ”practical” standpoint as a standpoint taken from Monros experience? That is, did he have his own experience of the Whitechapel killer? If yes/no – Why/why not?
3. If yes; how?
C) Can we understand Warrenīs resignation in the light of Monroīs standpoint? If yes/no – why/why not? If yes, how can we understand it?
Concearning this question, this source may be of interest (Boston Daily Globe, 13 November 1888):
(A journalist asking Warren
”"Is there any trouble with the police?"
"No, that is all nonsense. No feeling such as has been represented exists. I think you will find that the metropolitan police are more contented now than they have been for years."
"You did not resign on account of the last Whitechapel murder?"
Sir Charles adjusted his glasses and smiled.
"No," he resumed, emphatically,"no, I sent in my resignation before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month, and immediately after Mr. Matthews's statement in the House of Commons in reference to my article in Murray's Magazine. The resignation was accepted yesterday.
(http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-4545.html)
1. How can we interpree the assertion of Warren that he ”sent” his resignation ”before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month”?
2. What meaning has the word ”SENT”? Did he send a telegram? A letter? Do we have a reliable source for this?
3. And what meaning has the phrase ”on the 8th”? Was it at noon? Was it 5 minutes before midnight? Do we have a reliable source for the actual time?
D) Is there any reason to hypothesize that the replacement of Warren with Monro had anything to do with the "hot potato"?
If yes/no – why/why not?
E) Which (types of) suspects would definitely NOT be a matter of a "hot potato"? Why not?
Which ones would? Why?
Wishing you all a Happy Halloween,
Pierre
Halloween is coming up and why not spend it trying to solve one of the biggest questions in ripperology?
The question I have chosen is intimately connected to Jack the Ripper and James Monro.
I call it The Monro Standpoint (his own word).
I know that various aspects of The Monro Standpoint have been debated in the forum earlier. But debaters often change and develope their views.
And the question of how the standpoint should be interpreted has no solution yet. It remains a mystery.
The Monro Standpoint relies on very sparse data. But this also gives us a great chance to discuss the meaning of it and perhaps find valid and reliable answers.
(We tend to sometimes have to much data from 1888. We have to make choices along the way which lead us away from good answers. We donīt se the answer for all the data. But not in this matter.)
So here we go.
First of all Iīd like to disconnect the standpoint of Monro from Macnaghten and from the so called Macnaghten memoranda. The disconnection is based on the fact that Macnaghten did not join Scotland Yard until after the canonical murders.
Once we have disconnected the sparce sources of Monro from the later source of Macnaghten we can begin to analyze The Monro Standpoint by reading the following short text about Monro from the Casebook
(If someone has a link to the original sources not mentioned in this text, that would naturally be most valuable):
"We may not know what his theory was but we do know he had one because in 1890 he told Cassells Magazine he had "decidedly" formed a theory and "When I do theorise it is from a practical standpoint and not upon any visionary foundation." His grandson Christopher remembers him saying "Jack the Ripper should have been caught." Even more exciting, he was supposed to have left his eldest son Charles some papers relating to the case. If these ever existed they were probably destroyed by Charles Monro but he told a younger brother Douglas that their father's theory on the case was "a very hot potato."
What could have been Monro's theory?"
(http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-monro.html)
And from our analyze of the text we can pose the following (and more) questions:
A) What can ”Jack the Ripper SHOULD have been caught” mean?
1. Does the text have a strong meaning, saying that they did not catch him even if they actually COULD have done so? (Should is then interpreted as could - but they chose not to do so). If yes/no – why/why not?
2. If the text (hypothetically) is correctly interpreted as having this type of strong meaning; could the commentary that Monros standpoint was ”a very hot potato” mean that the interpretation of ”should have been caught” as strong is the right interpretation? If yes/no – why/why not?
3. What is the best ”objective” (not connected to the Monro Standpoint) interpretation of the expression ”a very hot potato”?
4. Could we use a dictionary for instance and say that the best interpretation could be something like
”A problem that is so controversial or sensitive that those handling it risk unpleasant consequences”
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hot+potato)
(Iīn not very interested in using dictionaries but it can be a starting point for discussions)
If yes/no – why/why not?
B) What does a ”practical” standpoint mean?
1. Could it for instance mean:
”relating to experience, real situations, or actions rather than ideas or imagination”
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/practical)
If yes/no – why/why not?
2. Could we interprete a ”practical” standpoint as a standpoint taken from Monros experience? That is, did he have his own experience of the Whitechapel killer? If yes/no – Why/why not?
3. If yes; how?
C) Can we understand Warrenīs resignation in the light of Monroīs standpoint? If yes/no – why/why not? If yes, how can we understand it?
Concearning this question, this source may be of interest (Boston Daily Globe, 13 November 1888):
(A journalist asking Warren
”"Is there any trouble with the police?"
"No, that is all nonsense. No feeling such as has been represented exists. I think you will find that the metropolitan police are more contented now than they have been for years."
"You did not resign on account of the last Whitechapel murder?"
Sir Charles adjusted his glasses and smiled.
"No," he resumed, emphatically,"no, I sent in my resignation before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month, and immediately after Mr. Matthews's statement in the House of Commons in reference to my article in Murray's Magazine. The resignation was accepted yesterday.
(http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-4545.html)
1. How can we interpree the assertion of Warren that he ”sent” his resignation ”before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month”?
2. What meaning has the word ”SENT”? Did he send a telegram? A letter? Do we have a reliable source for this?
3. And what meaning has the phrase ”on the 8th”? Was it at noon? Was it 5 minutes before midnight? Do we have a reliable source for the actual time?
D) Is there any reason to hypothesize that the replacement of Warren with Monro had anything to do with the "hot potato"?
If yes/no – why/why not?
E) Which (types of) suspects would definitely NOT be a matter of a "hot potato"? Why not?
Which ones would? Why?
Wishing you all a Happy Halloween,
Pierre
Comment