Suspects Page

[Barnaby]

The suspects page displays persons "suspected of being Jack the Ripper." Suspects range from the contemporary, to the modern, to the fantastical.

Recently, there has been some argument whether or not to add Cross/Lechmere to this list. Many have disagreed because he wasn't a suspect at/around the time of the murders. Without getting into the pros and cons of this particular suspect, I have some general concerns:

There is no rhyme or reason to the suspects included in this section of the website. If this site is to be an authoritative depository of Jack the Ripper information, it seems to me that it is important to neither artifically narrow the suspects nor broaden it to include everyone under the sun.

What should be done with the suspects section of the website? One suggestion might be to do away with it and just link it to the Suspects message boards, where anything goes, and the biosketches currently residing on this tab could be linked to the associated suspects on the message boards. Another suggestion, which I prefer, is to allow members wanting to add new suspects to this page to generate a biosketch/argument for inclusion and have members vote it up or down. In fairness, we should also do this with the existing persons on the Suspects page. That is, does each person on the Suspects page deserve commentary as a suspect?

To me, it seems ludicrous that people like Lewis Carroll are highlighted while recent research into more viable candidates is simply fodder for the message boards.

[miss marple]

Quite agree,some of the suspects on the suspects page are absurd while other more viable suspects are excluded.
The page should be updated, with some kind of criteria, such as contemporary supects, suspects who could be proved to be in or have connection with whitechapel at the time, suspects with a criminal record or violence against women, suspects who may have known the victims.

Miss Marple

[Sally]

Is there a correlation with books? There must have been some criteria for selecting the suspects for inclusion in the first place. Bad news if the suspects are all the subject of books - we may see Vincent Van Gogh beng added very soon!

[Wade Aznable]

Good morning,
even if I like the suspects page a lot (it's been my starting point to Casebook, after all!), I myself have been thinking about it a while, and while I somewhat agree that it should be updated, I have many doubts on HOW that should be done: that, IMHO, depends on the original purpose of the page. But which was this purpose?

Since the page includes suspects who have been positively excluded (i.e. Ostrog, Cream), who are fascinating to the average reader but have been already debunked (i.e. PAV & the Royal Conspiracy, Carroll), whose actual existence is debated (i.e. Fogelma and Vassily-Pedachenko) side by side with the "Big Guns" whose plausibility and seriousness as suspects can not be denied (and I'll name no names, here!), my opinion is that the page's purpose was to provide a quick, intuitive, 360° list of the most "discussed / reknown" suspects / hypoteses that have been proposed in 124 years of investigation, be they plausible or "fantastic" - kind of a "starting point", also for "newbies" (I hate the word, but I can't find a better one) just approaching the JTR investigation, maybe because they read Cornwell or heard about the Diary. And if this is the purpose, the page reaches it admirably.

That been said, I don't think such purpose should be changed, nor I see narrowing the list as being coherent with such purpose; while I agree that it should include some new, recently-named suspects - what should be decided is the criteria for inclusion, that, IMHO, should now prefer plausibility over diffusion (or fame of the suspect).
So, if you ask me, currently there are only two names to add - Cross/Lechmere and Le Grand (sorry for the star lautrekkers out there), and even they can be disputed: they're plausible suspects, but only very recently investigated and quite far from the average "popularity / awareness of" of the names already listed (and there's where the concept of "plausibility over diffusion" should step in). To go even further, if I remember properly there's the chance that Le Grand was somewhat considered "person of interest" by the MET at the time, so his case for inclusion is stronger; we don't know (yet?) if that was the case for Lechmere as well, so this makes him somewhat a lesser candidate for inclusion (but still worthy, and still credible as a suspect!).

My tuppence!

Best regards,
W

[DGB]

Another suggestion, which I prefer, is to allow members wanting to add new suspects to this page to generate a biosketch/argument for inclusion and have members vote it up or down.

To an extent, won't the wiki allow for this anyway? At least member added information (I've never updated it myself, so I don't know what access is granted for editing).

If the wiki concept is fully embraced, it should theoretically subsume the victims/suspects/witness pages.

[Scott Nelson]

Don't subsume anything.

[Cogidubnus]

This isn't our site after all, but belongs to someone who let's us post here as guests...he who pays the piper etc...

(Though having said that, I do believe the likes of Cross, LeGrand, Levy and Issenschmidt deserve a little more consideration than some of the candidates on the suspect list!)

All the best

Dave

[Rubyretro]

.

Another suggestion, which I prefer, is to allow members wanting to add new suspects to this page to generate a biosketch/argument for inclusion and have members vote it up or down. In fairness, we should also do this with the existing persons on the Suspects page. That is, does each person on the Suspects page deserve commentary as a suspect?

To me, it seems ludicrous that people like Lewis Carroll are highlighted while recent research into more viable candidates is simply fodder for the message boards.

An excellent and useful thread, Barnaby.

Obviousy it is is silly to exclude a suspect like Lechmere/Cross and include the Royal Conspiracy and Lewis Carroll.

Personally, I would say that the decision should be left to Admin....and Admin should create polls along the lines which Fish suggested as an alternative to
Sally's last poll.

That is to say that anyone wishing to include a new suspect should have him thouroughy debated on the boards first, and then have to submit to a candidature put forward to Admin , who would have final say.

The Poll would be to give people browsing the site unseen, or new members, an idea of the viability of that candidate in the eyes of the voters.

As things stand, anyone looking at the Suspect Page today would get a very
false idea of the the Case.

[Robert]

I agree with Wade, when he says that the suspects page was probably meant to be a brief introduction for the curious newcomer. Such newcomers may well have been drawn to the case via the Royal Conspiracy or PAV, so there are sections on those, and the weaknesses in those theories are pointed out. I don't suppose the suspects page articles were meant to be exhaustive or the last word on any suspect. Most newcomers will realise that the case is in a state of flux. One has to give them a foothold, and a short article on a suspect is probably a better introduction than the maelstrom that is the message boards. New ones are added - I see Uncle Jack is up there - and presumably anyone can write a short piece and send it to Stephen for approval.