Rippercast- The Jack the Ripper Podcast

[Howard Brown]

Nick:

How's this for a coincidence?

5 minutes ago I replied to an email from Dr. Fido...who is in pretty good health unlike a comment I saw mentioned recently which reported otherwise.

At your request, I will email the good doctor and forward the mail to JMenges and ask him to appear on the program.

Great suggestion,by the way and thanks for putting up with all those other guys and their drivel and who don't let me cut loose on the show because of some damned FCC violations.

[Nick]

That's great news How. I'm a great fan of Martin's and it will be great to listen to his thoughts.


Apologies for thinking it was yourself unwrapping a sandwich this time rather than Andy

[Monty]

Apologies

Guys,

Im afraid to say it my have been me who has misled over Martins health.

I was obviously misinformed, or I misunderstood.

My apologies to Martin and all.

Monty

[jmenges]

FYI- As of today, Martin Fido (nor Stewart P. Evans, in case you were wondering) has not expressed an interest in doing the Podcast. Both gentlemen have been approached.

One of the chief aims of the podcast is to bring the widest variety of people, opinions, and topics to its listeners in an informative, entertaining, free, and not-for-profit manner. Subjects we seek to cover pertain to not only the Whitechapel Murders and Ripperology specifically, but also the history of the late Victorian Period, the East End of London, the British Police forces, the Irish struggle, and every tangential, historical, artistic and creative angle that is of interest to the co-hosts, and by extension, hopefully, the podcast's listenership.

Individuals are approached and asked to be on the podcast on a daily basis. Right now we have more than 10 uniquely different people, not including those who wish to have repeat appearences, in line to be a part of the show.

I ask that if you have an idea for a guest or subject, or would like to be a guest yourself, please PM myself, Howard, Robert or Mike. We would be more than happy to respond with information on our future plans and get the ball rolling on a show to meet your interests.

I would prefer to keep all speculation on future guests and topics off the boards.

Thank you

J 'Ivan the Terrible' M

[George Hutchinson]

De Locksley, De Locksley, De Locksley!!!

Then get Karen Trenouth.

Seriously, though, has Chris Scott been asked?

PHILIP

[Monty]

Deeee Locksley, Deeee Locksley, Kentucky Fried Chicken and a Pizza Hut !

JM,

I was about to ask if there were limitions to just Jack. I feel the socio climate of the time had a huge impact.

I personall would like to hear one about Policing....yeah, I know, mail you.

Im just in such a lazy mood today.

Monty

[jmenges]

Hi Monty,

I don't mind subjects that we could discuss being brought up on these threads as much as I mind naming people folks would like to see as guests, which may lead one of us to respond publicly to those requests. It could so happen that those who are named are individuals we are currently working on, people who have already declined, or have said "yes" but we've yet to work out the particulars on date, topic, technical set-up etc. Just in the last 2 days, posters here and on the forums have mentioned names that fit in all three of these categories.

JM

[Monty]

JM,

Im surprised you could understand the post above, not my most lucid moments.

Victims of your own success Mate, you shouldnt be so darn popular.

Monty

[jmenges]

Hi Neil,

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

JM

[Monty]

Hey JM,

So I see....Ive responded likewise.

Monty

[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.

[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]

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]

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,

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.