Criteria for plausibility

[Tom_Wescott]

New interpretations

Hi Abby, Fish, and all,

There's a lot to be said of new interpretations of known evidence, as there's MUCH in the Ripper investigation which I've found hasn't been looked at all that closely, or has been looked at in the wrong way. However, one question I try to keep to the fore of my mind as I'm doing my research and have a 'eureka!' moment, is 'Did nobody notice this before because they weren't looking, or because it's not there?' In other words, new interpretations have to be tested, and I feel they should be AT LEAST as plausible as interpretations already accepted. If it's MORE plausible, then all the better.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

curious:

"If you need any help with proof reading, Fisherman, let me know. I have completed Ordfrontens kurs i korrekturläsning - in Swedish, of course, but have done a fair amount in English as well. (just an excuse for an early peek lol.)"

Thanks for the offer, curious. Ordfronten, no less! Anyways, thearticle is already finished and in the pipeline, having been proofread by a good friend of mine. It will come out in a few day´s time.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"So your "jaw dropping find" is not new evidence but an interpretation of existing material?"

Exactly so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"Hopefully you havent stole too much of Fish's thunder."

Lechmere does not owe me, Abby - it´s more like the other way around.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"There's a lot to be said of new interpretations of known evidence, as there's MUCH in the Ripper investigation which I've found hasn't been looked at all that closely, or has been looked at in the wrong way. However, one question I try to keep to the fore of my mind as I'm doing my research and have a 'eureka!' moment, is 'Did nobody notice this before because they weren't looking, or because it's not there?' In other words, new interpretations have to be tested, and I feel they should be AT LEAST as plausible as interpretations already accepted. If it's MORE plausible, then all the better. "

Wise words Wescott! That makes the words in a row, starting with a w - but more important, I think you are spot on. If you need a clue, I can say that in this particular case, it´s much more a case of not looking than one of it not being there...

All the best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

curious:

"If you need any help with proof reading, Fisherman, let me know. I have completed Ordfrontens kurs i korrekturläsning - in Swedish, of course, but have done a fair amount in English as well. (just an excuse for an early peek lol.)"

Thanks for the offer, curious. Ordfronten, no less! Anyways, thearticle is already finished and in the pipeline, having been proofread by a good friend of mine. It will come out in a few day´s time.

All the best,
Fisherman

Looking forward to reading it!

Best wishes,
C4 (not to be confused with curious)

[Fisherman]

Curious4:

"C4 (not to be confused with curious)"

Just realized that - sorry!

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I would say it's not so much a case of reinterpretatings things but more looking closely at what was actually said and not going with what it was assumed had been said. Or picking up on details that were glossed over.
For instance we have the bit in Tomkins's testimony where he mentions women coming to his yard on previous evenings. I am unaware that this detail had been noticed before. Perhaps it was and I hadn't noticed that it had been noticed!
There are many such details that can re-colour our view of the case.
I also feel that the Nichols case in particular has been neglected and deserves much closer study. There is a wealth of detail just waiting to come out when it is examined and it is this detail which tends to incriminate Cross.

[curious]

Looking forward to reading it!

Best wishes,
C4 (not to be confused with curious)

Thanks for that. I was tempted to mention it, but am glad that you did.

But I also am looking forward to reading what Fisherman has to say. On this, at least, the two curiouses are in sync.

[Tom_Wescott]

Wise words Wescott! That makes the words in a row, starting with a w - but more important, I think you are spot on. If you need a clue, I can say that in this particular case, it´s much more a case of not looking than one of it not being there...

I've no doubt that's true in your case, but I know I've made a few whoppers in my time. But I play it safe and ALWAYS have select individuals read over my essays before they're turned in to the editor of whatever journal I'm sending it to. I also used to like to use these boards as testing grounds for new ideas, but I'm shying away from that more and more, because too many times I've posted a thought or a theory to test it and it's been thrown back in my face time and again as though I had somehow committed myself to it. Or else it's been picked up by others and endlessly (and often wildly) discussed and accepted, and because it's a 'cool' idea, it gains ground. The irony is I often find myself then arguing against an idea that was originally mine but that I've abandoned or set aside because it didn't pass muster.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

For instance we have the bit in Tomkins's testimony where he mentions women coming to his yard on previous evenings. I am unaware that this detail had been noticed before.

Yes, in fact many years ago it was the subject of a thread on here, and a long discussion occurred regarding Tomkins, the slaughtermen's apparent friendship with the police, and the ensuing graffiti on their door that occurred after suspicion regarding the men made the papers.

I would say it's not so much a case of reinterpretatings things but more looking closely at what was actually said and not going with what it was assumed had been said. Or picking up on details that were glossed over.
There are many such details that can re-colour our view of the case.
I also feel that the Nichols case in particular has been neglected and deserves much closer study. There is a wealth of detail just waiting to come out when it is examined and it is this detail which tends to incriminate Cross.

I felt the same way about Stride back in 2005 and started on a crusade with her. Nichols used to be completely ignored, but fortunately that's not the case any more. Tabram has been completely ignored. Thanks to researchers/writers like Monty, Sam Flynn, and Gavin Bromley, I feel we have a lot more insight into the Eddowes murder, and Mary Kelly is...oh my goodness...a labyrinth I'm dreading having to make my way through when I reach that chapter in my book. Miller's Court was where everyone was looking while I was plugging away on Berner Street and Lechmere (the poster) was camping out on Buck's Row (no doubt lodging at Essex Warf!).

Is everyone here aware that Buck's Row is derived from Duck's Row which is derived from Ducking Pond Row because they used to persecute witches on that spot by dunking them in a pond that was there? Just an aside that popped back in my mind from reading it eons ago in Ripper Notes magazine in an article written by Bernard Brown.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Barnaby]

Being among the contemporarily suspected candidates adds to the plausibility, generally speaking. The same goes for a subsequent criminal record.

Then again, what happens when we take a look at my favourite suspect, Charles Lechmere? Was he suspected at the time? No. Do we know of a criminal record on his behalf after 1888? No.

But we DO know that he can be geographically tied to the murder spots in a manner than no other suspect comes even close to.
Fisherman

Going back to the original point of the thread, I think Fisherman makes a really good point. Being contemporarily suspected might add to the plausibility, but it is far from the only criterion that should be used. After all, many of us believe the police never were close to catching the Ripper.

Personally, I think the hallmark of a good candidate is two-fold. First, there must be some rational reason (contemporary or otherwise) to suspect him. This would exclude suspects like Van Gogh, but this is admittedly subjective. Given that a reason exists to suspect someone, a worthwhile person to investigate is one whom we can at least potentially rule out with further research. Science advances by falsification. That is why the research on Ostrog was so valuable: now we don't have to consider him. To the extent that further research does not rule the suspect out - and in fact raises more suspicions - then, inductively, the candidate grows in strength as a suspect.

[Fisherman]

Tom:

" I also used to like to use these boards as testing grounds for new ideas, but I'm shying away from that more and more, because too many times I've posted a thought or a theory to test it and it's been thrown back in my face time and again as though I had somehow committed myself to it."

You don´t say ...?

"Or else it's been picked up by others and endlessly (and often wildly) discussed and accepted, and because it's a 'cool' idea, it gains ground. The irony is I often find myself then arguing against an idea that was originally mine but that I've abandoned or set aside because it didn't pass muster. "

Yep, that too is a collateral damage risk of bringing your ideas to the boards. But in my case, we have to keep in mind that I have not yet brought my idea here - it is still in the pipeline only.
On the whole, I think that sometimes people are too restrictive about giving fellow Ripperologists a go at what they are contemplating. But I am not opposed to the possibility that you may be right - it would perhaps be wiser not to do so too enthusiastically, since it entails these problems you mention.

"I've no doubt that's true in your case, but I know I've made a few whoppers in my time."

In the best of worlds, we would all be able to present our thoughts on the boards at a very early stage, have them tested, and then move on with the ones who were not revealed to be "whoppers". But we are normally too afraid to do that, are we not? Prestige has a tendency of getting the better of taking advantage of the collective knowledge out here, and that is something we all have reason to regret. I´m as guilty as anybody else in that respect.

All the best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Barnaby:

"Personally, I think the hallmark of a good candidate is two-fold. First, there must be some rational reason (contemporary or otherwise) to suspect him. This would exclude suspects like Van Gogh, but this is admittedly subjective. Given that a reason exists to suspect someone, a worthwhile person to investigate is one whom we can at least potentially rule out with further research. Science advances by falsification. That is why the research on Ostrog was so valuable: now we don't have to consider him. To the extent that further research does not rule the suspect out - and in fact raises more suspicions - then, inductively, the candidate grows in strength as a suspect."

Bought!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jonathan H]

To Barnaby

Primary sources about Ostrog showed that he was not much of a suspect, if one at all. In fact, since he had become fictionalised that this had to be done suggests there was not much to begin with?

We potentially knew this before other primary sources -- eg. the French asylum records -- proved he had an iron-clad alibi.

For example here is Macnaghten, via Sims, from 'Lloyds Weekly, Sept 22nd, 1907:

'The second man [the un-named Ostrog] was a Russian doctor, a man of vile character, who had been in various prisons in his own country and ours. The Russian doctor who at the time of the murders was in Whitechapel, but in hiding as it afterwards transpired, was in the habit of carrying surgical knives about with him. He suffered from a dangerous form of insanity, and when inquiries were afterwards set on foot he was found to be in a criminal lunatic asylum abroad. He was a vile and terrible person, capable of any atrocity.

Both these men [Ostrog and 'Kosminski'] were capable of the Ripper crimes, but there is one thing that makes the case against each of them weak.

They were both alive long after the horrors had ceased, and though both were in an asylum, there had been a considerable time after the cessation of the Ripper crimes during which they were at liberty and passing about among their fellow men.'


Although the story makes several false calims about Ostrog the monster, eg. carrying knives, dangerously insane, and being in hiding in Whitechapel during the murders, nevertheless by the 'awful glut' criteria set up by Mac this Russian doctor is not much of a suspect (we even see the real data being manipulated here: about Ostrog being in an asylum abroad).

Finally and most pertinently there is Mac's 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' of 1914. This was the only document by this police chief about the case under his own name for the public.

It is arguably definitive.

So, what does Mac claim about the un-naned Ostrog in that document?

He had the hyped-up version of his Report, 'Aberconway', at his elbow when Mac wrote that memoir chapter (despite his boasts to be writing entirely from memory having supposedly destroyed all of his papers on the case).

What does Mac claim about this minor suspect in his memoirs?

Nothing.

Ostrog is apparently not worth writing about.

I am therefore challenging the notion that secondary sources ascertained a new notion about Ostrog. Rather, Sudgen finding those asylum records confirmed the implication of Mac's eve-of-the-Great-War memoir -- Michael Ostrog was not a real suspect.