Rippercast- The Jack the Ripper Podcast

[Mike Covell]

Great show last night guys, Stan Russo was great and really passionate!

It was good to have Paul Begg on again and always a pleasure to discuss the case with Jonathon, Robert and Howard "The filly from Philly" Brown!!

I look forward to your future projects Stan and good luck with the wedding.

[Stephen Thomas]

Dear Stephen

"Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder."
Reminds me of a great line from a song by the band, X

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder...
...so I never wanna see you again."

It was a long distance romance. The farther away she was, the more he loved her.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Stephen

"Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder."
Reminds me of a great line from a song by the band, X

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder...
...so I never wanna see you again."

[Stephen Thomas]

' hope that answers the question put to me in absentia'

Is that stronger than Absinthe, Andy?
If so, I want some.

Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.

[jmenges]

Hi Andy,

I almost ventured but shied away from putting words in your mouth re: your opinion on how Tabram as a Ripper victim affects Druitt's candidacy. I believe I stated on the podcast that I'd let you speak for yourself on the matter, so thanks for addressing that here.

JM

[Cap'n Jack]

' hope that answers the question put to me in absentia'

Is that stronger than Absinthe, Andy?
If so, I want some.

[aspallek]

I only just got around to listening to the episode on Martha Tabram and I noticed a question regarding my presentation about Druitt, specifically about his whereabouts at the time of Tabram's murder. I'll respond to that.

As Jonathan said on the podcast, I did address that on the Druitt episode. We do not know Druitt's whereabouts on exactly the day Tabram was murdered but we do know that he played cricket in Dorset on the weekend before and the weekend after that murder. It is therefore likely that he spent the whole week in Dorset, though we also must remember it was only a 2.5 hour rail journey between London and Bournemouth. If Tabram is a Ripper victim Druitt becomes a significantly less likely suspect, though he is not eliminated.

Personally, I don't consider it likely that Tabram was a Ripper victim. I reached that conclusion long before I had any interest in Druitt as a suspect. Ironically, Tabram's chances of being a victim have actually risen in my estimation since I became interested in Druitt (for reasons that have nothing to do with Druitt) but I still think it most likely she was not. I would put the odds at about a 30-35% chance of Tabram being a Ripper victim.

I hope that answers the question put to me in absentia.

[jmenges]

Episode #9 - Stan Russo

Hi all,

Episode #9 of Rippercast will feature special guest Stan Russo.

He's the author of, most recently, 2006's The 50 Best Movies for the Movie Fan. Also, Stan has written The 50 Most Significant Individuals in Recorded History, The Jack the Ripper Suspects: 70 Persons Cited by Investigators and Theorists and articles in the Ripper periodicals. Read one such article, The Strange Case of Dr. John Hewitt, which appeared in Ripper Notes, here http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-drhewitt.html

We'll discuss all kinds of things with Mr. Russo, so if you have any questions you would like us to pose to him on Sunday's program, send them my way via PM or at rippernet@mac.com.

JM

[aspallek]

Hi Dan,

This is the last I'm going to say about it on this thread but I didn't say that modern criminology "didn't apply" to a 120-year old case. My original debate proposal was which should be our starting point, primary sources or modern criminology?

I should also say that when I refer to "primary sources" I am using the term somewhat loosely as I would include some documents that are actually secondary but that date from the time, or near the time, of the murders.

Just an idea, but one I fear to be fraught with a bit too much vested emotion perhaps.

[Dan Norder]

Of course we don't need to get in a debate over this here (not that there'd be much of anything to debate, you might as well try to claim that modern science doesn't apply to anything more than 50 years old or so either and the entire field of history is worthless because it tries to study old things), but I would hope that any debate Rippercast would consider hosting some day wouldn't be worded in such an obviously slanted way.

[aspallek]

Hi Dan,

I'm not going to get into the debate here, but "modern ciminology" can certainly not be a primary source for a 120-year old murder case.

[Dan Norder]

Hi Andy,

Modern criminology says you should use primary sources, so that's certainly not an either/or proposition. And, as far as that goes, when it comes to hypothesizing about the motives and drives of an unknown killer, modern criminology is the primary source.

Most of the people who are strongly against modern criminology also tend to ignore primary sources in favor of secondary ones to suit their own theories... or at least from what I've seen demonstrated on these boards anyway.

[aspallek]

Jonathan,

Have you ever thought of holding a sort of debate on one of the Podcasts? I'm thinking the question could be:

What should be our starting point for Ripper investigation,

(1) primary sources, or

(2) modern criminology.

Of course, it would be great to have a professional historian and a professional criminologist debate the point but that may not be possible.

[Monty]

Hey JM,

So I see....Ive responded likewise.

Monty

[jmenges]

Hi Neil,

You're so popular that I've sent you a PM.

JM