Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[mklhawley]

To be fair, Jonathan, only one contemporary police theory - or solution if you must - could have produced the name of the actual killer. It is therefore a reasonable assumption - or theory if you must - that because no more than two senior cops appeared to be in agreement over their likeliest rippers, and others didn't even have a suspect they could believe in, there really was no convincing evidence against a specific individual, and therefore yes, the police - as a body - failed to solve anything, with none of them as individuals coming up with the right name.

On top of that, you have Macnaghten destroying the private information that had convinced him, as just one policeman, that Druitt dunnit. So in effect, how could the ripper case not have been a 'mystery' to the people at the time, and remain a mystery to us today?

You wouldn't buy a car on trust from someone who told you he had destroyed all the paperwork showing it had one careful lady owner - or would you?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Very thoughtful, but for me, it's too much of a broad brushstroke not taking into account their positions and personal agendas. For example, I can see Abberline not privy to the bigger investigation, because he was focus on the Whitechapel District. Any West End 'Jekyl/Hyde' types, he would not known much about. Also, MacNaghten was blessed with being at the right position at the right time.

Sincerely,
Mike

[caz]

What you are writing about was invented by secondary sources.

They turn the primary sources of policemen who believe the case was solved into footnotes, into sideshows -- or drop them altogether.

This was started by William Le Queux in 1923, eg. that it was up to amateur sleuths ti solve the case, or not, as the police had as a fact failed.

This myth (because it is treated as a fact) is what you perpetuate.

It might be correct, but it is a theory of the case which says that we can be sure at this distance that all the primary sources at the time which claimed it was solved are mistaken.

When Dan Farson, in 1959, was shown Sir Melville's internal 'notes' by Macnaghten's daughter, Christabel, he had a legit scoop on his hands. What he did not know was that he had identified the man at the centre of the Edwardian solution (because he had neither the time nor the resources to find out),for in that era it was not much of a mystery anymore.

The problem is that many here think it is a fact, or as close to the definitely ascertained article as you can get, that all the police failed.

It is a theory that they all failed, and arguably not a strong one.

This idea that you need to find a leading suspect to write a book might be publisher-driven, sure, but it is not ahistorical; significant primary sources claim it had ceased to be a mystery.

Only secondary sources reboot the whole subject as a mystery to the people of the time, perhaps rightly -- but also perhaps wrongly.

To be fair, Jonathan, only one contemporary police theory - or solution if you must - could have produced the name of the actual killer. It is therefore a reasonable assumption - or theory if you must - that because no more than two senior cops appeared to be in agreement over their likeliest rippers, and others didn't even have a suspect they could believe in, there really was no convincing evidence against a specific individual, and therefore yes, the police - as a body - failed to solve anything, with none of them as individuals coming up with the right name.

On top of that, you have Macnaghten destroying the private information that had convinced him, as just one policeman, that Druitt dunnit. So in effect, how could the ripper case not have been a 'mystery' to the people at the time, and remain a mystery to us today?

You wouldn't buy a car on trust from someone who told you he had destroyed all the paperwork showing it had one careful lady owner - or would you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Graham]

Hi Caz Agatha Etc., Etc.

Yes, I noticed the *, and guessed he's been a bad boy, like me.

Cheers,

Graham Hercule Sherlock Whicher CBE

[caz]

Hi Graham,

Well last time he had * under his name, instead of his 'rank', I noticed he was away from the boards for a week, then returned and his 'rank' reappeared.

My guess is that he has earned himself another week's leave and will be back around May 4th or thereabouts.

Love,

Caz Agatha Patricia Jessica Jane Marple-Christie
X

[Graham]

Does anyone know what's happened to Phil H....?

Graham

[Cogidubnus]

This should have been the end of this poor thread.

Just for once David, I agree with you...

All the best

Dave

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Limehouse

It's not that a new book necessarily advocates a suspect, it's that the police at the time claimed it was not much of a mystery any more.

They advocated suspects, Macnaghten more than anybody else.

Therefore a book which sidelines those cops, those primary sources, has taken a position.

It is not a neutral or responsible position, as often mis-described here.

It's a theory of the subject: we know more than they did. A big, big call.

Sure, it's a legit position, but it's a position, eg. an interpretation and a theory -- not a fact.

[DVV]

A year's study and this is what you come up with? You've just cut yourself with that razor.

Mike

This should have been the end of this poor thread.

[Fisherman]

any book that purports to supply us with a valid suspect should also be supplying us with the hard evidence that links the person to the crimes.

Then there would be no suspect books, Michael. Simple as. And Ripperology would miss out on an important factor and driving force.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil H:


Not so long ago I seem to recall you were saying that you did not have a theory that you promoted above all others.

What you said was:

"I have stated numerous times that others are possible. That is no secret. We all know it. That should be enough... I have however NEVER stated that Lechmere must be the killer. THAT would have been good cause to get annoyed, I suppose. But I am going no further than to say that he is the one person who has the most circumstantial evidence going for him of all the suspects, and that I personally actually think that he WAS the killer... Surely those are not too bold things to state? Both are true, and you would be quite aware of that."

... and this you interpret as me saying that I have no theory that I promote above all others? Is it somehow unclear that I have such a theory??

I donīt follow what you are saying here, Phil. But I notice that when you cannot produce a viable criticism of what I say, you turn to jestering about misspellings. So much for that effort...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Limehouse]

What you are writing about was invented by secondary sources.

They turn the primary sources of policemen who believe the case was solved into footnotes, into sideshows -- or drop them altogether.

This was started by William Le Queux in 1923, eg. that it was up to amateur sleuths ti solve the case, or not, as the police had as a fact failed.

This myth (because it is treated as a fact) is what you perpetuate.

It might be correct, but it is a theory of the case which says that we can be sure at this distance that all the primary sources at the time which claimed it was solved are mistaken.

When Dan Farson, in 1959, was shown Sir Melville's internal 'notes' by Macnaghten's daughter, Christabel, he had a legit scoop on his hands. What he did not know was that he had identified the man at the centre of the Edwardian solution (because he had neither the time nor the resources to find out),for in that era it was not much of a mystery anymore.

The problem is that many here think it is a fact, or as close to the definitely ascertained article as you can get, that all the police failed.

It is a theory that they all failed, and arguably not a strong one.

This idea that you need to find a leading suspect to write a book might be publisher-driven, sure, but it is not ahistorical; significant primary sources claim it had ceased to be a mystery.

Only secondary sources reboot the whole subject as a mystery to the people of the time, perhaps rightly -- but also perhaps wrongly.

Excellent points Jonathan, if I may say so.

[Jonathan H]

What you are writing about was invented by secondary sources.

They turn the primary sources of policemen who believe the case was solved into footnotes, into sideshows -- or drop them altogether.

This was started by William Le Queux in 1923, eg. that it was up to amateur sleuths ti solve the case, or not, as the police had as a fact failed.

This myth (because it is treated as a fact) is what you perpetuate.

It might be correct, but it is a theory of the case which says that we can be sure at this distance that all the primary sources at the time which claimed it was solved are mistaken.

When Dan Farson, in 1959, was shown Sir Melville's internal 'notes' by Macnaghten's daughter, Christabel, he had a legit scoop on his hands. What he did not know was that he had identified the man at the centre of the Edwardian solution (because he had neither the time nor the resources to find out),for in that era it was not much of a mystery anymore.

The problem is that many here think it is a fact, or as close to the definitely ascertained article as you can get, that all the police failed.

It is a theory that they all failed, and arguably not a strong one.

This idea that you need to find a leading suspect to write a book might be publisher-driven, sure, but it is not ahistorical; significant primary sources claim it had ceased to be a mystery.

Only secondary sources reboot the whole subject as a mystery to the people of the time, perhaps rightly -- but also perhaps wrongly.

[RivkahChaya]

I wonder how many early books were driven by a publisher who didn't think a book without a conclusion wasn't marketable? I don't think we have anyone on the thread who submitted a well-researched book to a publisher before 1988, and was told "without naming a suspect, the book isn't finished, and readers will be dissatisfied," so we probably can't know, but I think there's generally more of a market for "unsolved mystery" type things now.

For one things, the fact that you can debate things with people over the internet makes books like that a beginning, and not and end, and for another, people are more interested in forming their own opinions, informed or not. In addition to that, of course, since 1988, when the case was officially closed, a lot of previously unpublished information was released. You can now fill out a book, without needing a lot of speculation, or extraneous information, like the history of the Freemasons.

The first time I ever read anything on the Ripper without a conclusion, was a five or six page bit in an anthology of "unsolved mysteries" published when I was maybe 14. When Paul Begg's 1988 book came out, I seem to recall (although, I don't have a copy in front of me), that the introduction is a mild apology for not naming a suspect, and an explanation of why that really isn't the way to go, though, for a level-headed researcher. I was only 21. I was a little disappointed, but I saw his point, and appreciated it. By the end of the book, I knew he was right.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe thats the crux of my complaint in this regard....those books start with a suspect, they arent structured to reveal the legitimate discovery of one as a result of the "journey" taken. If some facts dont support that argument, then they are dismissed or not even included.

I agree.

Indeed. that was the state of "Ripperology" when i first started to read in the field.

* Matters has Dr Stanley
* MacCormack had Pedachenko
* Cullen and Farson had Druitt
* Knight had his conspiracy (which definitely witheld pertinent facts and distorted others)
* Harris had D'Onston Stephenson etc etc (Harris was agreat overturner of myths).

The books had a formula too:

1.A brief narrative of the murders and the period - slanted to assist with the premeditated conclusion.

2. Rubbish everything that had gone before, especially the immediately previous volume.

3. Put forward your own theory and suspect, to which the whol;e presentation has led up, so as to make the conclusion seem inevitable.

Books like Odell's or Stewart's pointing at a "type" rather than an individual were rare, as were the simple non-suspect studies of the crimes - like Rumbelow or Whittington-Egan.

Further, in McCormack's day they would make up material that did not exist - whether Dr Dutton's "Chronicles of Crime" or dialogue or verses said to be contemporary. These fictions still lead people astray.

1988 was the year things changed, in my view. The best modern suspect books (with the exception of ones like "Uncle Jack") now research contemporary suspects (Rob House on Kosminski; Fido on the same; Evans on Tumblety etc). They are sounder books.

I feel the one weakness of Sugden in his apparent need to identify a suspect (probably at the behest of his publisher).

Set against that we have the post-modern deconstructionist volumes of AP Wolff and Peter Turnbull - which seek to defy conventional wisdoms. We also have the emergence of periodicals/magazines/journals such as Ripperana and Ripperologist where current research can be made available in almost "real time".

The suspect books of the past served their purpose, they were readable but ultimately unconvincing. They brought people of my generation into the field. I am disappointed though to see that weak suspects are still promoted and that the Goghites and Sickerteenies still spring forth. We should have moved on from that.

Phil

Hi Phil,

Nice to be wearing the same uniform on this one. I would only add a side bit to the above, that AP Wolf is one genuinely talented wordsmith and anything he writes is worth a read, with all due respect to the many fine authors we have here, and there.

To Jonathan,

If we examine the leading premise here its that officials related to the cases had quoted opinions on whom they thought likely as the culprit. We also have the historical backgrounds on all these senior men, and know of some of their potential for embellishment and fabrication, certainly in the case of Anderson. We also have the fact that Macnaughten mentions 3 people of which one was not in England.. or at liberty, during the Fall of Terror. We have as you said senior investigators naming names. But what does that all amount to...surely not a starting point.

We know now that to debate the inclusion of Ostrog is redundant, and we know that there was no Ripper linkage ever discussed regarding Druitt that went beyond his suicide timing, his family mental history and some rumors, familial or not. So thats 2 of the 3 men this senior official puts forth as his Most Likely Suspects that are not really "Suspects" material at all. No matter how much the Memorandum is contested, it is not a document that should be considered a serious guide for academics in the subject. Its too wrong to possibly be right.

I think to really understand these events you need to do just that....become so conversant in the features and details of the murder investigations that you can quickly filter through the claims being made for some supporting evidence.

I think what wasnt said by many senior investigators at times was far more important than what actually was. Im thinking of Monro and his "hot potato".....

Cheers

[Jonathan H]

To Phil

You never let me down with that stick, 'bless you'.

I love that bit about how you are going to stop 'debating' with me when you never started. You just spout your line and always refused -- point blank and shamelessly -- to engage in any debate at all.

To Michael W Richards

All secondary sources have an 'agenda', which is a misleadingly sinister, leftist term.

Actually they have an interpretation of the limited and contradictory sources which have preceded them, both primary and secondary.

How strong each interpretation is in the eye of the beholder.

Since two contemporaneous police chiefs, Anderson and Macnaghten, claimed that the case was solved (though they were diametrically opposed as to the identity of the culprit) and two other significant police figures, to varying and controversial degrees, claimed that there were likely suspects (Abberline/Chapman; Littlechild/Tumblety) that is where you have to start.

You have to explain why each of them is wrong, or one of them is likely to be more right than the others (which is what Sudgen did with Abberline and Chapman).

It's fair enough if you argue that each of the cops was wrong, and that here was a much more likely character to have been the murderer, whom they missed perhaps for reasons of a limited understanding of the kind of psycho they were dealing with, and so on.

All reference books make choices about how they frame primary sources and are not free from personal interpretation any more than a so-called 'suspect' book. Why would they be? They are created by people.

Take Patricia Cornwall.

She can be shown to be a limited secondary source not because she advocated Walter Sickert (though that's painfully unpersuasive too) but because she disparages Macnaghten as a worthless primary source (without dealing with primary material which strenuously opposes such an extreme denunciation) while praising Abberline -- yet never discovering, from even a cursory review of the available literature, that he advocated Chapman.