Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[moonbegger]

The human imagination is a powerful instrument. Beware of it.

O'contraire Rodney ! Embrace it whole heartedly .

[Cogidubnus]

"Au contraire" ?

Mind you, the spelling ****-up might be indicative...

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

I note that BTCG has been notable by his absence recently - do you think it was something we said?

Phil

[Phil Carter]

.....yet it made an excellent point very well - almost any person can be made a convincing suspect if you are selective, argue cleverly and resort to special logic....

Phil

Hello Phil H,

What I am still at a loss to understand fully though, is the belief that some people have that after all the silly games that have been played in this genre, they still believe they can pull one over on seasoned Ripperologists and enthusiasts alike. The most obvious "star" suspect theories, are actually a worn-out line of fooling people. Other, more subtle approaches have been tried from an angle "within" the genre..like the still discussed though generally hoax-regarded 17th September letter.

We will, of course, because of the internet and the computer and paint systems and the like, still get "visions" in paintings popping up to convince us that things are there that aren't. But even that is becoming old hat. There is of course, the regular regurgitation of old suspect theories popping up, in different forms. No doubt some genius will come up with something entirely different in the effort to fool, make money, or just have a laugh (twisted sense of fun, perhaps) at other peoples sense of the serious hobby. Perhaps I am being cynical...that comes with age, I'm told.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

I note that BTCG has been notable by his absence recently - do you think it was something we said?

Phil

Hello Phil H,

Probably lining up a tv slot..prime time. Then there are the endless rounds of interviews....


Phil

[Phil H]

Is it possible that - on the evidence we have - Ripperology has gone almost as far as it can. We are in a sort of post-modern, even deconstructionist phase. Threads on here challenge every accepted view, every fact; we have the emergence of Cross/Lechmere as an almost serious suspect - who would have believed that in 1988!

We live in an age of celebrity - shallow andcontrived. Cynicism and a belief that authority and the police are discredited, corrupt or manipulative. That people have things kept from them. I think that can foster a view in some that "unmasking" a Barnardo or a Dodgson is a good thing. They were never saints and "desrve" it. The killer was probably a "toff" and it was covered up - a legacy of Watergate and Knight's "conspiracy" perhaps.

I think there is also (for many members of the general public) more "magic", more sensationalism, more thrills in a Ripper that is from the upper-classes rather than him being a Kosminski.

Add to that that the killer left messages and clues and you have a game everyone can play - hence the interest in the GSG (in my view) and the letters and paintings by artists.

All of this IMHO also reflects the fact that REAL advances in this field come from tiny incremental steps - the sort made by researchers on here who pore over census returns and local directories. But most people are not very scholarly, detail bores them - give them a sweep, a broad canvas, bright colours and generalisations, given them sensationalism - Queen Victoria was JtR!!!!

The meaning and implications of the Swanson marginalia; the domestic arrangements of the Kosminski family; the records of Colney Hatch are far too detailed to capture the imagination of the masses. Many come to the subject I suspect, via the films (Decree, Hell, Caine 1988) and are pre-disposed to the revelations being huge, the cover-ups deep.

Modern publishing methods are also a contributing factor, I believe - you can get almost anything into print of onto Kindle. For every CSI: Whitechapel, we have an Uncle Jack. Old editorial standards are passing.

But to an extent it was ever thus. While Knight was fantasising about masons and royalty, Richard Whittington-Egan (a figure almost never mentioned these days) was also at work.

Today, while the van Goghites and the Sickerteenies play, quiet research is going on and articles appear in Ripperologist etc that have real quality. It is that which we should welcome and rejoice in. Not the parasitic weeds.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

But to an extent it was ever thus. While Knight was fantasising about masons and royalty, Richard Whittington-Egan (a figure almost never mentioned these days) was also at work.

Phil

Hello Phil H,

Before that though, Donald McCormick too, remember. Inventing dialogue between people of the day! Inventing things and inserting them into the scenario.

The 1970's - 1990's got very messy though. Stories..Joseph Gorman Sickert inventing then sending out a disclaimer " a whopping fib"..then retracting the "whopping fib" in part, and inventing more material for another book, with a new author, who then, afterwards, distances himself from it all..then this book, then that book, then this film, then that film, ..then...then.. it just went on and on. Cornwell came in and re-invented the regurgitation, with Sickert, part of the original Knight story, if not the part that "Hobo" wanted to hear.

I think you are correct when you write of "the end of the line" scenario. But I wouldn't mind putting a wager down that we will see something major in the hoax department coming up this year. My bet is that it will, like the 17th September letter, be aimed at the enthusiasts and the knowledgeable. We will also be subjected to more regurgitations and tiny add ons to old suspect theories.

If I had one wish for the genre, it would be that the powers that be in Scotland Yard finally relent and let us all see what material they have relating to The Whitechapel Murders in any form, one line references included, from the Special Branch material they have. All of it. It would take this genre forward in leaps and bounds, out of the dark ages of not knowing, but wondering "what if"...and then..we can finally say that there is NO material from the time that hasn't been seen or is being kept back.

If, for example, there actually exists (I know,, small chance, destruction etc over the years) a file on Tumblety's movements that Littlechild suggested, possibly connected to Fenian involvement..we could finally sew together a lot more concerning that man.

The same goes for any name from the past. We could really advance our knowledge. Although current research is, as you suggest, important, major breakthroughs have dried up. Opening the "in perpetuity" files would be the most important thing the genre has experienced since the papers started to becojme available to genuine researchers in the 1970's.

I fear it will never happen, sadly. And if it doesn't, people like Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow, true pioneers in this field, will never get the answers to the questions they must have perused over many many times.



Phil

[Fisherman]

we have the emergence of Cross/Lechmere as an almost serious suspect
Phil

No we donīt - the emergence of Lechmere as a suspect is of older date than today, and he was never an "almost serious suspect". He was and is a thoroughly serious suspect. If you want to believe something else, I suggest that you present one single suspect that has more going for him in terms of practically applicable circumstantial evidence.
You wonīt be able to do that, of course, since there is no such suspect. And letīs make no bones about it - we both know that!

All the best, Phil

Fisherman

[Phil H]

I wrote what I wrote and meant it. No serious scholar would entertain Lechmere/Cross as more than an amusing footnote, since the case is entirely circumstantial and he was not a contemporary suspect.

IMHO the focus on such marginal ideas is a factor of boredom - there is only so much anyone can write about Kosminski, Druitt (though Jonathan tries, bless him) or Mary Kelly, yet sites like this demand topics to debate and discuss. So we invent them - and like the example of WS Gilbert, a humourous bit of satire becomes a "well-supported" theory.

practically applicable circumstantial evidence

What an invention!!! Can you have practically applicable circumstantial evidence? Wonderful use of the English language - I salute you.

I have to congratulate you, Fisherman, for your single-minded determination to pusue your cause. I wish I had your energy and application. Seriously, i don't know what modern Ripperology would do without you.

Phil

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE]

I wrote what I wrote and meant it. No serious scholar would entertain Lechmere/Cross as more than an amusing footnote, since the case is entirely circumstantial and he was not a contemporary suspect.

Iīm afraid you are wrong again. I am totally serious and I can assure you that goes for Edward too. And the "contemporary suspect" thing is and remains utter crap as long as nothing can be found to further sustain it. Sorry.

IMHO the focus on such marginal ideas is a factor of boredom - there is only so much anyone can write about Kosminski, Druitt ...

And guess why?

practically applicable circumstantial evidence

What an invention!!! Can you have practically applicable circumstantial evidence? Wonderful use of the English language - I salute you.

Well, Phil, whenever I donīt point this out, you and others take great care to do so for me...

I have to congratulate you, Fisherman, for your single-minded determination to pusue your cause. I wish I had your energy and application. Seriously, i don't know what modern Ripperology would do without you.

Nor will you find out anytime soon.

I noticed, by the way, that you failed to produce a better circumstantially grounded suspect ...? Big surprise. Big, BIG surprise!!

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

drudge work

Hello Phil, Phil. I agree, the drudge work will pay off in the end.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I noticed, by the way, that you failed to produce a better circumstantially grounded suspect ...?

Why on eartnh would I want to, or be interested in CIRCUMSTANTIALLY GROUNDED SUSPECTS?

Sorry but I study this field relatively seriously, and the Lechmere/Cross threads are, for me at least, an amusing distraction. A bit like Jonathan's Druitt posts (though I don't read those) entirely based on weak foundations of speculation and post hoc reasoning.

Point me to one serious work on the Ripper (suspect compilations apart) that has argued the case for Cross/Lechmere.

Phil C
Even if the authorities released any retained information relating to the Ripper case - not sure how you define that to be comprehensive - I doubt that it would solve anything. More likely it would create new questions. Rather as the Swanson marginalia has.

In the 60s/early 70s when I first started to read in the subject, the unspoken assumption was that once the files were opened (100 year rule then so in 1988/1992 period) there would be a name. The police would have suspected someone.

When Roy Jenkins opened the files earlier, what did we find - the macnaghten memo, with at least one potential suspect NOW shown to be unlikely/impossible. NO SOLUTIONS. I suspect that the same would be true of any of the retained files (assuming they exist). Ripper content could be tangential, incomplete - begging more questions, or spurious.

It would be nice to have it, but I doubt it would be conclusive.

Phil

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Phil H;259082]I noticed, by the way, that you failed to produce a better circumstantially grounded suspect ...?

Why on eartnh would I want to, or be interested in CIRCUMSTANTIALLY GROUNDED SUSPECTS?

Because if the circumstantial evidence amounts to a lot, involving placing the suspect at a murder spot, using a false name, telling the police a lie and using paths that cover all the murder places, it would be completely senseless NOT to be interested.

Sorry but I study this field relatively seriously, and the Lechmere/Cross threads are, for me at least, an amusing distraction.

Itīs either or, actually.

Point me to one serious work on the Ripper (suspect compilations apart) that has argued the case for Cross/Lechmere.

Actually, Phil, that is irrelevant. Innocent persons have had books arguing for their guilt, and guilty persons will have gone without any recognition in that shape. So why ask the question? Because it is not until an authority that you accept point a finger at somebody that you may accept guilt? Wow ...! But if you must have a name, how about Michael Connor ...?

All the best,
Christer

[Phil H]

As we both know, Fisherman, our interests and methods lie far apart, probably best to leave it that way.

However, when you write:

Because if the circumstantial evidence amounts to a lot, involving placing the suspect at a murder spot, using a false name, telling the police a lie and using paths that cover all the murder places, it would be completely senseless NOT to be interested.

can you not perceive that being interested and promoting the individual as a prime suspect, are wholly different issues? one does not lead to the other.

I am mildly interestedin Lechmere/Cross, but I would not dream for a moment of citing him as a leading contender for JtR. He MIGHT have been the killer in the cases of Polly and Annie, but there is nothing to tie him to either crime other than being a bystander, and there are alternative "innocent" explanations for his giving an alternative (not false, I note) name. The rest of your accusations against him are built up in your thought on a weak foundation - as I have pointed out before - of speculation based on inference, based on supposition.

Phil

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Phil H;259085]

when you write:

Because if the circumstantial evidence amounts to a lot, involving placing the suspect at a murder spot, using a false name, telling the police a lie and using paths that cover all the murder places, it would be completely senseless NOT to be interested.

can you not perceive that being interested and promoting the individual as a prime suspect, are wholly different issues? one does not lead to the other.

Yes, I can perceive that, Phil. I can tell the two apart. In fact, wide apart.

That does not, however, detract from the fact that you can do both things at the same time: You can be interested in a suspect AND promote him as a prime suspect.

I am interested in Lechmere.

I promote him as a prime suspect.

See?

Being interested in somebody comes in varying degrees. You are "mildly interested" in Lechmere - I am very interested in him.

[QUOTE]

I am mildly interestedin Lechmere/Cross, but I would not dream for a moment of citing him as a leading contender for JtR. He MIGHT have been the killer in the cases of Polly and Annie...

...and Liz and Kate and Mary and Alice and Rose...

Why on earth go for Polly and Annie only?

...but there is nothing to tie him to either crime other than being a bystander, and there are alternative "innocent" explanations for his giving an alternative (not false, I note) name. The rest of your accusations against him are built up in your thought on a weak foundation - as I have pointed out before - of speculation based on inference, based on supposition.

Being a "bystander" DOES tie him to the Nichols crime. Not necessarily as the killer, just as you say, but it nevertheless ties him to the Nichols crime as such. Killer or discoverer, thatīs the question.

As fot him having potential "innocent explanations" to all the things that point to him, nobody is opposing that, as you surely will have noticed. But that always applies in cases like these. You donīt realize that he is a prime suspect, and there may be innocent explanations to that too. Not sure youīd like me to list some of them, though!

All the best,
Fisherman