Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[Jonathan H]

To the Fish

I thought that was an excellent post and definitely food for thought.

To some extent police were looking for a maniac, or somebody who stood out as capable of such atrocities. Not your average East End scrounger.

Due to the low esteem in which I am held here I am sorry if that puts other people off.

Peer review refers to people who have established academic qualifications-institutional authority, and who assess another academic's research in the same field.

It does not really apply here as every writer is a journeyperson, eg. they are journalists, ex-police persons and un-tenured academics.

Does that mean they can't write a decent work of history?

Not at all. I think some of these books are [unsung] masterpieces of historical analysis.

But that is not the same as Peer Review, which in its exact meaning is not really applicable.

[Fisherman]

So that immensely long post was, I take it, a way of saying I won't subject my thesis to review by acknowledged experts?

And you confiirm that you are not, for all your bluster and aggression, not really confident of your ground?

Phil

Anybody who wants to review the theory I ascribe to is welcome to do so. Otherwise, why would I be on these public boards? Others may be hesitant to come out with their beliefs. I am not. How that makes me unconfident is something you will have to explain to me. On a regular basis, people complaint that I am TOO confident.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

To the Fish

I thought that was an excellent post and definitely food for thought.

To some extent police were looking for a maniac, or somebody who stood out as capable of such atrocities. Not your average East End scrounger.

Due to the low esteem in which I am held here I am sorry if that puts other people off.

Peer review refers to people who have established academic qualifications-institutional authority, and who assess another academic's research in the same field.

It does not really apply here as every writer is a journeyperson, eg. they are journalists, ex-police persons and un-tenured academics.

Does that mean they can't write a decent work of history?

Not at all. I think some of these books are [unsung] masterpieces of historical analysis.

But that is not the same as Peer Review, which in its exact meaning is not really applicable.

Thanks, Jonathan!

I very much second what you say about the type of killer that was sought after by the police, by the way. I think we tend to underestimate the prevailing methods back then of categorization of people, not least criminals.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Then shall we ask Philip Sugden to review your and Fisherman's ideas then, Jonathan?

Your last post was very clever. It effectively exonerates you from any sort of judgement. What a cop out!! But in the sprit of Casebook, please feel free to cling to your special pleading.

You also effectively denigrate the very people who have changed Ripper studies from a slough of jornalistic froth and invention, into a field of study where the standard and universally accepted practices of intellectual endeavour might be seen to apply. But you are exempt from all that?

Certainly I can see why you might prefer the standards of MacCormick or Knight. But even they were subject to "review" by others in subsequent books by other authors and in comments by acknowledged experts such as Whittington-Egan.

It does not really apply here as every writer is a journeyperson, eg. they are journalists, ex-police persons and un-tenured academics.

Well, there's a statement to ponder!!! Your comments would not apply, I think, to Philip Sugden - would you submit your ideas to his analysis?

But are you not also a "journeyperson" (as you put it) - or do you claim a superior status to the giants of our field? Unless you are a tenured academic, are they not exactly the sort of experts who should judge another amateur's work - peers literally, equals?

Does that mean they can't write a decent work of history? Not at all. I think some of these books are [unsung] masterpieces of historical analysis.

I have rarely read such a fine example of "damning with faint praise". Is that really all you can say of Evans' "Scotland Yard Investigates"; not to mention the Ultimate Sourcebook or Letters which are as fine examples of a reference work as I can think of in any field! What of Begg, Rumbelow, the A-Z?

I am actually grateful for your comments as they at least allow the rest of us who have an interest in the subject to perceive how we must be regarded

And are they "unsung"? Certainly not by me and I think by many others.

Have you published anything in the field - even articles? If you have, then again I'd argue that they are your peers (fellow writers); if not, then how can you seriously argue that they are unqualified to review your work?

Don't worry Jonathan, I shalln't press you. I never attack anyone when they are down. Equally, don't expect me to discuss any aspects of the case with you anytime soon. But then, as I do not even rate the epithet of "journeyperson", and being far from even an "un-tenured academic", I am sure that is as you would wish it.

[Fisherman]

I appreciate that you addressed Jonathan in this post of yours, Phil. But for the record, I would not mind being reviewed by Sugden. Why would I? On the contrary, it would be nice, just as it is nice to have anybody at all comment on your thinking. Thing is, not very many do. Most authorities have not done so - well, that of course depends on what you mean by authorities, but I was going by your own assessment in your earlier post.

I spot two things about Sugden that may spell trouble - to begin with I do not know how much time he has spent on the developments of the case over the years after his eminent book was published. But if he is well read up, then fine! The second bit is that Sugden does lean very clearly towards Chapman, and I donīt know to what extent that may colour his thoughts. His book does not betray any such thing, but one never knows, does one? I mean, I am trying to be perfectly honest about what I think about Lechmere, but that has a lot of people claiming things on my behalf that are simply not true, and it is said that I twist things and that I am deceitful and so on. When personal interests enter the equation, much of the logic and sense of proportion goes the opposite way. I know that assessment of mine will only have some people saying that I am the one who puts personal convictions over logic, but there is only so much I can do about that!

All in all, any authority that is willing to look into the Lechmere theory and comment on it is very welcome. But be prepared for the unevitable: When TWO authorities have spoken, you will have two differing views.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Fisherman - I mentioned Sugden as an academic, because Jonathan appeared to be casting doubts on the credentials of other Ripper specialists and their ability to comment on his work.

My point is not whether any reviewer is up-to-date: I am not the one squirming and icking and choosing. Any of our well-known and eminent (in my view) Ripper experts - I have specifically named most of them before and will not again - would do for me. I don't think Sugden posts on Casebook (as others of our published writers do) and therefore I have no idea whether he maintains an interest in the subject or in reviewing your work.

But be prepared for the unevitable: When TWO authorities have spoken, you will have two differing views.

I don't understand this setence, which appears to misunderstand mine.

What I am saying is that if a range of qualified Ripper experts reviews you r work and if only two of them agree that your ideas have merit, then I will take your ideas seriously.

I was not suggesting you take ONLY two experts. But if seven (I pick the number from the air) "experts" thought your ideas were rubbish and two thought they had merit then I would stand by my commitment. But I think I am fairly safe in saying that all would reject your thesis as conjectural and unsound.

Phil

[Phil H]

How that makes me unconfident is something you will have to explain to me.

To cite the Bard: Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

The defensiveness of your recent posts in this discussion says it all.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To PhilH

Everything you have written is wrong, as usual.

You always get the wrong end of the stick. Are you familiar with the character George Castanza from 'Seinfeld'? You need to make a decision -- and then do it's opposite.

I was praising people who did not have the luxury of the backing of a University, and thus the time and resources conferred by tenure.

Many times the following books should be better known in mainstream historical circles because they are so damned good: Tom Cullen's 'Autumn of Terror' (he was a journo too); 'Evans and Rumbelow's 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (two former cops), 'Jack the Ripper--The Facts' by the brilliant Paul Begg.

Anything by R J Palmer.

Sudgen is a superb writer, but his work on Macnaghten and Druitt is hopelessly flawed, because for one thing he knew nothing about the 'West of England' MP breakthrough of 1991 and 2008.

[Phil H]

I decline to discuss anything further with you, Jonathan.

However, I must (in my own interest since you say I did not understand) point out that your previous post - to which I responded almost point by point, did not READ as you now say you intended it to do. I apologise for having the temerity to point this out)

Why - if you admire these gentleman so much - why did you write:

Peer review refers to people who have established academic qualifications-institutional authority, and who assess another academic's research in the same field.

Since peer review is actually a term in wide use for scrutiny by any equal (professionals in many fields use the term, accountants, surveyors etc), your statement clearly implies that the eminent Ripperologists to whom I referred were of some lesser breed than tenured academics. (See your next sentence.)

It does not really apply here as every writer is a journeyperson, eg. they are journalists, ex-police persons and un-tenured academics.

Which makes them your equals or "peers" (peers means equals) since you refer to "every writer" [here]. Your words appeared to me dismissive and demeaning to them. Again my humble apologies for reading what you wrote not what you meant.)

Does that mean they can't write a decent work of history?

Since you then go on talk about their work being "unsung", you can surely appreciate why I read that remark as being disparaging?

Anyway, I have no inention to offend or bore you further. You evidently do not wish to expose yourthinking to independent expert scrutiny - and under the terms of the present Casebook code of conduct I have to accept that. So there is no point discussing the issue further.

Goodbye.

[Michael W Richards]

There comes to mind that there are really only two types of books when it comes to Jack the Ripper...the ones that recite the information obtained and/or display the images acquired pertaining to the murders, the police, the area....and so on. Then there are Ripper books that allege a solution to the unsolved murders puzzle of 1888. They have an agenda. They are selling an idea that the author has been unable to get loose of in his mind, or a person whose character seemingly matches the nefarious nature of the crimes.

But to date....of all the books written on the subject that Ive read or am aware of,...not one suspect driven book has satisfactorily answered all the questions.

And many are a product of GIGO,... incorrect facts then spun into a tale of supposed gold. And its often the case, since its so subjective anyway, that the writer misses some gems that he or she has uncovered or postulated because their perspectives are on the forest they are creating, not the trees which make it up.

Since I first started reading these books in the late 80's Ive come to rely on the ones without agendas the most, like A-Z, and Mr Sugdens book. Id recommend them to any starter kit.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

I was not suggesting you take ONLY two experts. But if seven (I pick the number from the air) "experts" thought your ideas were rubbish and two thought they had merit then I would stand by my commitment. But I think I am fairly safe in saying that all would reject your thesis as conjectural and unsound.

Phil

Phil, unless you noticed yourself, ALL suspect cases are conjectural. None of them are grounded on firm, conclusive evidence. Some oif them are even grounded in no evidence at all.
So the only cases there are, are conjectural cases. And no doubt, just as I have found this out, any true authorities will be able to do so too.

That, however, must bnot mean that they would necessarily reject all cases, because of the conjecture involved. I believe you will understand this?

So, what remains of your criticism is your own conjecture that the authorities would regard my theory as "unsound". And that is just ignorant, so why would I bother to comment on that?

Exactly - I wouldnīt.

And donīt try that stuff about defensiveness - I am anything but defensive, I can assure you. I have a theory that I stand by, all the way. How is that "defensive"?

Exactly - it is not

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

There comes to mind that there are really only two types of books when it comes to Jack the Ripper...the ones that recite the information obtained and/or display the images acquired pertaining to the murders, the police, the area....and so on. Then there are Ripper books that allege a solution to the unsolved murders puzzle of 1888. They have an agenda. They are selling an idea that the author has been unable to get loose of in his mind, or a person whose character seemingly matches the nefarious nature of the crimes.

But to date....of all the books written on the subject that Ive read or am aware of,...not one suspect driven book has satisfactorily answered all the questions.

And many are a product of GIGO,... incorrect facts then spun into a tale of supposed gold. And its often the case, since its so subjective anyway, that the writer misses some gems that he or she has uncovered or postulated because their perspectives are on the forest they are creating, not the trees which make it up.

Since I first started reading these books in the late 80's Ive come to rely on the ones without agendas the most, like A-Z, and Mr Sugdens book. Id recommend them to any starter kit.

Cheers

I think that is oversimplyfying matters somewhat, Michael. There ARE some really lousy suspecdt boopiks out there - and there are some really good too. And at the end of the day, I think that Ripperology benefits very much from the mixture of uncommited (if you will) Ripper books AND suspect books. It is in the cutting points between the two that Ripperology is advanced to a large extent, if you ask me.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I have a theory that I stand by, all the way. How is that "defensive"?

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."

Hmmmnnn

There ARE some really lousy suspecdt boopiks out there

I was just wondering what one on Lechmere/Cross would be like - when I noticed your spelling!!

A "boopik" is about right, I guess!!

[Michael W Richards]

I think that is oversimplyfying matters somewhat, Michael. There ARE some really lousy suspecdt boopiks out there - and there are some really good too. And at the end of the day, I think that Ripperology benefits very much from the mixture of uncommited (if you will) Ripper books AND suspect books. It is in the cutting points between the two that Ripperology is advanced to a large extent, if you ask me.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I would have to disagree with you on that my amigo, 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. Not just a good story around a premise. I can write that myself. None have done so.

Anyone trying to support their own position will view the raw data from that perspective..trying to glean supporting factoids for their own argument. That isnt an unbiased review of the data...something which I strongly support. Its interpreting information in a way that best suits the writers views.

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.

Just my opinion Fisherman. Cheers Mate.

[Phil H]

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